Well, we are fighting a group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq right now, so that is a pretty good clue that we are beating terrorists every time we kill one of them. I did not want this to be the next front in the war on terror, but Bush opened it and the enemy engaged. Why do you want to spend more time on your paranoid conspiracy theories about the president and a neocon cabal rather than focus on the actual situation on the ground in Iraq. I get so tired of anti-war folks who seem to be in a time warp and cannot talk about anything other than whether we should have gotten into the war. Guess what, we are there and we need to decide if we want to stay. As long as victory is possible, then I say yes. The surge is pretty good evidence this approach is correct. And how exactly does surrender fight terrorism? It does nothing but encourage the bad guys.
As far as timelines, how long have we had troops in S. Korea? Will the next president pull us out of that “quagmire?”

It is pointless to discuss his legacy with you, as you are incapable of being in any sense objective (“madness”?, seriously step off the ledge). But I am willing to bet that history will judge him more favorably than the press or the Left.

“’America is No. 1′ whatever that means.” This is the most telling statement of anything you have posted. As I said before, many on the Left view America as the problem in the world and establish their positions accordingly. I pity those whose worldview is defined by their own self loathing.

CL, this is exactly the kind of chest-thumping nonsense that has put our country at more risk than ever. How do you figure invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 is helping to beat the terrorists, whomever you think they are? The attacks on 9/11 were criminal acts perpetrated by religious fanatics, not any one nation, and should have been dealt with like criminal acts. To do that, you need the help of all nations in order to marginalize and eliminate terrorist groups that operate across national boundaries.

By lashing out wildly and tying the pursuit of a fringe extremist group into their Neo-Con fantasy of cowboy foreign policy, this administration has done more to hurt our interests and put us at risk than any so-called terrorists ever could. And worst of all, it’s EXACTLY WHAT BIN LADEN WANTED BUSH TO DO. Going to war in Iraq because of the acts of religious fanatics that were ENEMIES OF IRAQ and IRAN did nothing but confirm the fears and suspicions of the rest of the world that the United States’ foreign policy is capricious and arbitrary and has done nothing but invite those same religious fanatics we say we’re fighting to flood into the void left when we took out Saddam with no plan for the aftermath.

How far would you have us follow this madness of a policy? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? How far do you have to run into a fire before you realize it’s time to turn around?

Don’t blame people who recognize this administration’s bungled response to 9/11 as folly and who aren’t willing to blindly send more soldiers to die just so we can feel better about the bad choices we’ve made and beat our chests and say “America is No. 1″ whatever that means. This isn’t a Toby Keith song. This is real life, and I’m sorry you care more about your ego than you do about actually eliminating terrorism and ending this senseless waste of our military personnel, but don’t blame liberals because you can’t admit the Bush Administration has been a horrible, horrible tragedy for this country and the world.

My comment at #33 was in response to comment #30.

Neither one of us is going to change the mind of the other, but I would point out your complaint about me using straw man arguments against “anyone who won’t blindly follow the war policy in Iraq” would include myself, since I have not been happy with many of the decisions made in this war. However, my criticism comes from my unwavering desire for us to win the war and beat the terrorists. I cannot say the same for many flesh and blood liberals I interact with on a daily basis. And to correct a point in your last post, I do not think these people are evil. Suicide bombers are evil.

You also noted “So we should crack down on dictatorships in Saudi Arabia that are at least somewhat willing to deal with America, but we should be reaching out to dictatorships like Iran that are openly hostile to America. Which is it?” When in any of my comments did I say anything about which regimes to support or deny support to? I assume this comment was to some hypothetical person on the left (created by Rush Limbaugh or some one else) and not myself, as my comments had nothing to do with particular support of regimes in the region.

I think the Berkley city council’s actions were absolutely descpicable and a perfect example of the council’s feelings on the war policy fueling over and leading them to a misguided, perverted and wrongheaded action against the troops themselves. The head of city councils, is to my understanding, a former Capt. and rather than DeMint’s actions of taking away federal fuding the real vote sould have been to strip him of his former rank and honorable discharge if he received one.

Please don’t impute the actions of some memeber of the ‘left’ on to Democrats or people who don’t support the current policy in Iraq. Otherwise you will only be bolstering an argument of people putting yourself (or those on the “right”) in the same category as those wacko’s who protest soldiers funerals based on the fact that their deaths are God’s just punishment for America for tolerating homosexuals in society. Would you consider that fair?

Lastly I already stated that three people in my immediate family alone held commission with the U.S. Government – obviously my views of the military don’t comport with the tidy hit job done by many conservative commentators on anyone who won’t blidly follow the war policy in Iraq. If you want to beat up on some hypothetical staw man creation of the most evil liberal you can think of, go ahead, but myself and the vast, vast majority of people who’s views are left of center probably won’t fit that bill.

The porn analogy is rather convoluted. Is the soldier the porn star? The general? Bush? The entire armed forces? And what is the overaching mission, sex education?

Your analogy only reinforces my point. There is nothing admirable about the porn industry or being a porn star. I believe many on the left believe the same about the military and being a soldier and that the idea that the soldier is some sort of victim is the perverse rationalization for their position.

I certainly agree that you can oppose the war without being anti-american or a traitor. The problem is the Left brazenly crosses that line on a daily basis and then claims immunity from any criticism for its behavior. Take for instance Berkeley City Councilwoman saying the Marines are the “President’s own gansters” and trying to expel the Marines from that city. But not to worry, they have assured us they “supports the troops.” The New York Times warns of an epidemic of murders by homicidal vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. When it turns out that returning vets are about a fifth as likely to kill someone as the genpop and the Times was counting involuntary homicides like DUI’s, the Times does not apologize to the soldiers and we don’t get to question the Times’ patriotism because “they support the troops.”

If you really support the troops, I invite you to visit anysoldier.com (I understand there are many other similar organizations but I have not used them) and put your money where your mouth is.

I actually was against the war at the outset, because I thought we should go after Iran. But once we opened this front, I would prefer to beat the terrorists rather than be defeated. You obviously disagree.