Bush vetoes funding for the troops!!

[AURaptor 1,125]

Pravda could not have produced any more misleading and distorted propaganda than was posted here by TexasTiger.

Well done, comrade.

I'm not your comrade. I don't share your totalitarian views.

I have no totalitarian view. That's your dept.

[autigeremt 6,652]

The fact is, this President has no real plan. He's been talking about "progress" being made for the last 3 years--- things have gotten worse. Iraq is not close to governing itself effectively and the Bush administration is too inept to keep turning our children over to. I haven't been advocating withdrawal up to now, but I don't see where our presence necessarily prevents chaos from occuring. The more I hear, frankly, the more apparent it is that this adminstration can't pull this off. Its not the troops--- they've done great. But they've been placed in a situation our military simply isn't designed to "fix." They deserve so much better than what their commander-in-chief has to offer.

Is this observation based on actual experience or are your conclusions based purely on what the party feeds you? You sit back there in Texas, high on your moral horse, and spout off bullsh*t like you were sitting in Baghdad on General Petraeus' staff. The fact of the matter is you don't know anything more than the average American about what is going on over there. To say no progress has been made in Iraq shows how little you actually know. You regurgitate media accounts that highlight the bad without ever mentioning the good that has happened. You say you haven't been advocating withdrawal up to now? You are right. While not explicitly calling for our withdrawal (God knows you'd never come out and make a clear stance on anything), you cheer on politicans that continually call for this action, and do everything they can to undermine our efforts in the field all the while claiming that by pushing for our retreat from this war you are supporting us. Nothing could be further from the truth. By taking this stance, you spit on our dead and wounded and tell them their sacrifice, service, and honor mean nothing. You support us by calling us incompetent, dumb, war criminals, murderers, and gangsters; and you take a macabre glee in each report of a soldiers death on the battlefield because that death is a punch to the stomach of George W. Bush, the real enemy of our country.

So, don't act like you have any regard for us in the armed forces. You and your ilk have consistently rooted against us in this mission from the get go, and to say you think we have done great means jack sh*t to me and is nothing more than a slap in our face. Keep your damn sentiment. No one I know wants it.

I felt that this post should live on to another page!!!! A Big Army Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooah! to that well put response!

[autigeremt 6,652]

I don't know why you guys are upset with TT. He consideres the United States the enemy in this war. He always has.

Here's another psycho who makes up the positons of those who disagree with him.

Why do you guys have to demonize everyone who disagrees with you?

You DEMONIZE yourself with posts that literally copy all the talking points of the democratic party! More and more "democrats" consider the United States as the "real" enemy anymore. They (democrats) want a socialistic government. One that's no longer ran by the majority. And one that allows any Tom-Dick- and Harry to come in and set up residence without prejudice. Plain and simple!

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I don't know why you guys are upset with TT. He consideres the United States the enemy in this war. He always has.

Here's another psycho who makes up the positons of those who disagree with him.

Why do you guys have to demonize everyone who disagrees with you?

You DEMONIZE yourself with posts that literally copy all the talking points of the democratic party! More and more "democrats" consider the United States as the "real" enemy anymore. They (democrats) want a socialistic government. One that's no longer ran by the majority. And one that allows any Tom-Dick- and Harry to come in and set up residence without prejudice. Plain and simple!

Hey moron, guess what? "The majority" of Americans favor a bill that calls for troop withdrawal by August 2008:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

You're outta touch! Guess that means you could be President! Congratulations!

[TexasTiger 12,961]

The fact is, this President has no real plan. He's been talking about "progress" being made for the last 3 years--- things have gotten worse. Iraq is not close to governing itself effectively and the Bush administration is too inept to keep turning our children over to. I haven't been advocating withdrawal up to now, but I don't see where our presence necessarily prevents chaos from occuring. The more I hear, frankly, the more apparent it is that this adminstration can't pull this off. Its not the troops--- they've done great. But they've been placed in a situation our military simply isn't designed to "fix." They deserve so much better than what their commander-in-chief has to offer.

Is this observation based on actual experience or are your conclusions based purely on what the party feeds you? You sit back there in Texas, high on your moral horse, and spout off bullsh*t like you were sitting in Baghdad on General Petraeus' staff. The fact of the matter is you don't know anything more than the average American about what is going on over there. To say no progress has been made in Iraq shows how little you actually know. You regurgitate media accounts that highlight the bad without ever mentioning the good that has happened. You say you haven't been advocating withdrawal up to now? You are right. While not explicitly calling for our withdrawal (God knows you'd never come out and make a clear stance on anything), you cheer on politicans that continually call for this action, and do everything they can to undermine our efforts in the field all the while claiming that by pushing for our retreat from this war you are supporting us. Nothing could be further from the truth. By taking this stance, you spit on our dead and wounded and tell them their sacrifice, service, and honor mean nothing. You support us by calling us incompetent, dumb, war criminals, murderers, and gangsters; and you take a macabre glee in each report of a soldiers death on the battlefield because that death is a punch to the stomach of George W. Bush, the real enemy of our country.

So, don't act like you have any regard for us in the armed forces. You and your ilk have consistently rooted against us in this mission from the get go, and to say you think we have done great means jack sh*t to me and is nothing more than a slap in our face. Keep your damn sentiment. No one I know wants it.

That is a deeply delusional rant without a basis in reality. You treat all you disagree with you the same--- with utter contempt-- and attribute views to them they don't have. I've heard "progress" from this President for three years. I'm not sure he understands that word. I'm not sure you do, either.

Holy cow. Talking to you is like banging your head against a brick wall. My freaking 4 year old makes more sense than you! I don't even know the guy, but TIS is probably a military man stationed somewhere in Spain and you are calling him delusional? That's rediculous. I would take his word over yours any day for the exact reasons in his post. You might want to re-read it, I think you missed some stuff. I work in the engineering field and know several National Guard officers that have served in Iraq, never even fired a gun. They worked on design plans and construction crews building new roads, water plants, pipelines, sewerage treatment facilities, converting old buildings to new facilities, etc. in parts of Iraq that they never even saw warfare during thier service years. Did you even know this was heppening every day over there? Sensationalism runs our media, and a suicide bomber makes better news than the commissioning of a new water treatment plant. Problem is, you are not looking or listening outside of what the media is feeding you. I am not saying all things are perfect, or even have been handled correctly every time. But hindsight is 20/20 and you seem to live on the fact that you "knew" things were so. Sure, I would like to have seen things go differently. But they didn't. That's not a good enough reason to cut tail and run away. Its not fair to the majority of Iraqi's that are not problematic. I would think even the dems could see this. But let me guess TT, you probably even used one sheet of toilet paper for a couple of days until you heard she was only kidding, right? For someone so concerned about global warming, it was a pretty funny joke in hindsight.

I bet your four year-old is embarassed his Dad can't spell "ridiculous."

Did you know this was happening over there:

Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: April 29, 2007

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Okay, so you're a sheep-- and even stupid as sheep go-- and TIS is your shepherd. Fine. Believe whom you want. It's easier than thinking for yourself. Personally, I tend to think these guys know more than TIS, and my dog knows more than you.

Consider the response to his veto from top military men who commanded troops in Iraq.

"The President vetoed our troops and the American people," says retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste. "His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration."

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: "This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever [it is] apparent [that] only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war -- alone, without their President's support."

Retired military commanders associated with the Washington-based National Security Network have been blunt about their sense that Bush is not just wrong about Iraq but that he is failing the troops he purports to support.

Some make historical comparisons.

Says retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard: "With this veto, the president has doomed us to repeating a terrible history. President Bush's current position is hauntingly reminiscent of March 1968 in Vietnam. At that time, both the Secretary of Defense and the President had recognized that the war could not be won militarily--just as our military commanders in Iraq have acknowledged. But not wanting to be tainted with losing a war, President Johnson authorized a surge of 25,000 troops. At that point, there had been 24,000 U.S. troops killed in action. Five years later, when the withdrawal of US troops was complete, we had suffered 34,000 additional combat deaths.

Others offer a straightforward assessment of Bush's failure as the commander-in-chief. "By vetoing this bill and failing to initiate an immediate and phased withdrawal, the President has effectively gone AWOL, deserting his duty post, leaving American forces with an impossible mission, suffering wholly unnecessary casualties," argues retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070502...enation/1191844

Why do you hate our troops so much? Why do you hate America?

[CCTAU 3,333]

Only a moron would use this math....24,000 = 3,000.

I have been looking and looking for all that jungle in Iraq. Guess I just can't see it.

Iraq = Viet Nam = Every libs fantasy.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Only a moron would use this math....24,000 = 3,000.

I have been looking and looking for all that jungle in Iraq. Guess I just can't see it.

Iraq = Viet Nam = Every libs fantasy.

Only a idiot would miss his point by sooooo much.

[CCTAU 3,333]

Only a moron would use this math....24,000 = 3,000.

I have been looking and looking for all that jungle in Iraq. Guess I just can't see it.

Iraq = Viet Nam = Every libs fantasy.

Only a idiot would miss his point by sooooo much.

Kinda like you and ALL of the previous posts that shoot holes in your weak argument. Then you pull out a few ex-military guys out of how many hundreds of thousand ex-military guys and claim their word means more than the guy who is stomping in the sand every day.

The difference is, we are not quitters. But you are a LOSER.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Only a moron would use this math....24,000 = 3,000.

I have been looking and looking for all that jungle in Iraq. Guess I just can't see it.

Iraq = Viet Nam = Every libs fantasy.

Only a idiot would miss his point by sooooo much.

Kinda like you and ALL of the previous posts that shoot holes in your weak argument. Then you pull out a few ex-military guys out of how many hundreds of thousand ex-military guys and claim their word means more than the guy who is stomping in the sand every day.

The difference is, we are not quitters. But you are a LOSER.

Check out the experience of those first two generals you dismiss as just a "few ex-military guys". They're in a good position to know what they are talking about.

[sogaaufan 27]

I swear, it seems hard for me to believe that all of you are Auburn people. The way you go at each other makes it hard to believe that you could agree on anything. Don't you people see what happened here? Have you never heard of negotiation? Most people don't agree with timetables to get out of Iraq, nor do they agree that the administration should have an open checkbook and an unlimited amount of time to wallow around over there. The way I see it, they just defined the parameters of the negotiation with this step. Both sides got to look good to the radical wing of their respective parties by standing up to the DEVILS on the other side of the aisle. Now they can get down to the business of finding something in the middle that everyone can live with. This is the way things should run in a democratic society. This should have happened before now. From what I hear, there should be another bill on the president's desk by Memorial Day. Maybe it will get signed, maybe not. If not, congress comes up with another offer. Haven't any of you ever bought a house? Do you understand negotiation? For once, I see signs of a healthy government, not what we dealt with when the president was able to operate like the king.

Lighten up, folks. This is the way its supposed to work.

[CCTAU 3,333]

Only a moron would use this math....24,000 = 3,000.

I have been looking and looking for all that jungle in Iraq. Guess I just can't see it.

Iraq = Viet Nam = Every libs fantasy.

Only a idiot would miss his point by sooooo much.

Kinda like you and ALL of the previous posts that shoot holes in your weak argument. Then you pull out a few ex-military guys out of how many hundreds of thousand ex-military guys and claim their word means more than the guy who is stomping in the sand every day.

The difference is, we are not quitters. But you are a LOSER.

Check out the experience of those first two generals you dismiss as just a "few ex-military guys". They're in a good position to know what they are talking about.

There are many more in a good position to know also. You just ignore those. It's best to read what they have to say and then compare it to other's assessment to try and get to the middle of things. Just like everything in life, there is a median. The problem with dimwits is that they will not concede that Iraq as a whole is better off. They think that the world only revolves around big cities. Baghdad is in bad shape, but not all of Iraq. Just like LA, NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. are not the only places where people live. Therefore they do not truly make up the whole of America. Just because all of those cities are $hitholes, does not mean the whole country is. Same with Iraq. Read all of the news, not just the stuff that makes you giddy.

[jw 4 au 526]

I bet your four year-old is embarassed his Dad can't spell "ridiculous."

Uh oh, the spelling police is out. Just a quick look at your posts in this thread alone and I see several additional errors you can add to your list. Pointing out spelling mistakes is always a good smoke screen to the actual intent of the post. It goes well with the name calling and personal attacks. And by the way, I won't take it personaly since I kind of started it, but don't you worry about what embarasses my son. Kind of humorous statement coming from you. His mom is an English teacher, so she can work on the spelling and grammer with him.

Did you know this was happening over there:

Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: April 29, 2007

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Okay, so you're a sheep-- and even stupid as sheep go-- and TIS is your shepherd. Fine. Believe whom you want. It's easier than thinking for yourself. Personally, I tend to think these guys know more than TIS, and my dog knows more than you.

Again, you miss the big picture. Of course you can always find a negative spin or comment on any subject. I'll counter your article with this one:

There are 47 primary health-care centers under construction in northern Iraq. The first completed center recently opened in Salah Al Den Province: More than 112,000 people in the Salah Al Den Province are receiving healthcare from the first completed Primary Healthcare Center (PHC) in the north. Built by local construction companies with quality assurance managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this $3.35 million dollar facility provides routine and initial emergency care to patients including X-ray, laboratories and dentistry. Medical supplies and laboratory equipment were included in the contract to make this facility complete and operational.

On January 15, three new schools were opened in Mushahidah: an elementary school for girls, a secondary school for girls, and an elementary school for boys: “This is a great example for the projects in this area,” said Shiek Naif Moutlak, the chief of the city council. “We thank the coalition for all they have done and hope for other projects in the area to help the people.”

Link is here with more information:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzRhM...YWJhMzQwYzFjNjM

You are refusing to acknowledge that that our men and women on the ground in Iraq are doing thier jobs to the best of thier abilities and a lot good is coming out of it. You are only looking at the negative side, what the media is feeding YOU. I've never said I am happy about us being over there fighting and dieing for someone else's freedom, but do I think it will ultamitely make America (and the world) safer, yes. I DO think we need an exit stratagy (like Bush said in your sig), but not a timetable (unlike what Bush said in your sig). And the fact that a few generals speak out against the war is a mute point. Just like civilian society, the military is made up of a mix of men and women with a mix of conservative and liberal ideas. It is only reasonable to think that once they leave the public sector, a few will say things that conflict with the President's views and even thier past actions (see George Tenent). General Petraeus and his men should be given ample time to see thier plan through without the politics in Washington DC getting involved, remember Petreaus was only approved by Congress this year. I am not a "lever pulling" Republican, I believe a mix of conservative and liberal ideas is what is best for the County. I may lean one way or the other, and that has changed over my life span. But right now, I don't think leaving the Iraqis to figure it out on their own is a great idea.

** Please excuse the spelling and grammer errors.

[jw 4 au 526]

I swear, it seems hard for me to believe that all of you are Auburn people. The way you go at each other makes it hard to believe that you could agree on anything. Don't you people see what happened here? Have you never heard of negotiation? Most people don't agree with timetables to get out of Iraq, nor do they agree that the administration should have an open checkbook and an unlimited amount of time to wallow around over there. The way I see it, they just defined the parameters of the negotiation with this step. Both sides got to look good to the radical wing of their respective parties by standing up to the DEVILS on the other side of the aisle. Now they can get down to the business of finding something in the middle that everyone can live with. This is the way things should run in a democratic society. This should have happened before now. From what I hear, there should be another bill on the president's desk by Memorial Day. Maybe it will get signed, maybe not. If not, congress comes up with another offer. Haven't any of you ever bought a house? Do you understand negotiation? For once, I see signs of a healthy government, not what we dealt with when the president was able to operate like the king.

Lighten up, folks. This is the way its supposed to work.

Great post and I agree almost entirely. I for one will admit that I should not get so worked up over politics and will try to do better in the future. It has always been this way since the ships landed. Simple debate is all it is, no need for mud slinging. We are all Auburn people.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Check out the experience of those first two generals you dismiss as just a "few ex-military guys". They're in a good position to know what they are talking about.

Where was all this courage and conviction during the leadup to the war? They as Generals are supposed to be leaders. Being a leader requires you to speak up and voice your concerns during mission planning. They chose to either remain silent or didn't have the bravado to get their concerns across during the planning phase. Now that they are out, they suddenly grow a pair and decide to go blabbing about how they knew this was wrong. Don't sound like too good of a leader from my vantage point, knowingly sending their troops into harms way when the odds were "decidedly against success in the mission." They either cared more about earning that next star rather than the well-being of their soldiers or they didn't have the courage necessary to fulfill the duties of their position.

I wonder if these guys are getting ready to sell a book.

[AFTiger 282]

Could the General's positions be because they couldn't succeed?

al-Qaida Ousted From One Iraqi District

By TODD PITMAN

Associated Press Writer

May 3, 2007, 2:11 PM EDT

BAQOUBA, Iraq -- Across the walls of the villas they seized in the name of their shadow government, black-masked al-Qaida militants spray-painted the words: "Property of the Islamic State of Iraq."

They manned checkpoints and buried an elaborate network of bombs in the streets. They issued austere edicts ordering women not to work. They filmed themselves attacking Americans and slaughtered those who did not believe in their cause.

For months, al-Qaida turned a part of one Baqouba neighborhood into an insurgent fiefdom that American and Iraqi forces were too undermanned to tackle -- a startling example of the terror group's ability to thrive openly in some places outside Baghdad even as U.S.-led forces struggle to regain control in the capital.

U.S. forces took back the entire Tahrir neighborhood during a weeklong operation that wrapped up Sunday in Baqouba, a city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad that al-Qaida declared last year the capital of its self-styled Islamic caliphate.

Though the operation was a success -- it forced the guerrillas to either flee or melt into the population -- soldiers say the extremists are likely to pop up anywhere else that's short on American firepower.

Indeed, even as the Tahrir operation took place, insurgents stepped up attacks on a new police post in the adjacent Old Baqouba district -- which was also cleared recently -- pounding it daily and killing Baqouba's police chief in a suicide car bombing.

Insurgent teams, meanwhile, have tried to infiltrate back into Tahrir, U.S. Capt. Huber Parsons said Tuesday.

When U.S. forces began pouring into the embattled district last week, residents said it was the first time they'd seen significant numbers of coalition troops since last fall. U.S. troops set up a combat outpost in northern Tahrir several months ago.

But to the south, residents recounted watching helplessly as masked fighters came and went freely in past months, piling weapons into the back of vehicles and taking over the homes of Shiites who had either fled or been killed.

"We were terrorized," said one man. "We wondered, Where is the government? Why have they forgotten us? Why does nobody come here to help?"

Baqouba has been wracked by violence for years. But insecurity has skyrocketed since late last year, partly because Sunni militants fleeing Baghdad's security crackdown have sought refuge here.

An estimated 60,000 people have fled the city of 300,000, most of them Shiites driven out by Sunni hit squads. Meanwhile, vital government subsidized food and fuel shipments, which normally flow in from Baghdad, ceased arriving because of political corruption in the capital, said Col. David W. Sutherland, whose 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, is responsible for security in Diyala province.

"In an insurgency, if you don't have faith in the government or security forces ... you turn to those who will offer you a better way," Sutherland said. "The terrorists were able to drive a wedge between the government and the people. But we're reversing that."

The battle for Baqouba picked up in mid-March.

U.S. commanders rushed in Stryker infantry battalion which helped clear, and eventually calm, the southern district of Buhriz, once the city's most violent area. While American forces fought there and in Old Baqouba, they watched neighboring Tahrir spin out of control.

Parsons said video from an unmanned aerial drone last month showed suspected al-Qaida militants searching vehicles at a checkpoint. They held back from destroying it, choosing to "track them to see where they were going, where they lived," Parsons said.

Then, for eight days in early April, al-Qaida battled fellow insurgents from the nationalist 1920 Revolution Brigades, who residents said were trying to resist the terror group's bid for control. The nationalist fighters ran out of ammunition and fled.

With the district firmly in al-Qaida's hands, local leaders and sheiks called on American and Iraqi soldiers for help.

U.S. forces first sent road-clearing teams into southern Tahrir April 22. Insurgents fired mortars and popped out of windows with rocket launchers, destroying three de-mining robots. Tanks and infantry blasted surrounding buildings, killing more than a dozen attackers.

The next day, Parsons moved three of his platoons into central Tahrir on foot. All three came under fire. The day ended with a 30-minute firefight at dusk in which rounds ripped through palm groves. Apache helicopters shot Hellfire missiles at a house insurgents had fled to, lighting the sky in thunderous blasts.

Fighting eased afterward. Soon, previously empty streets were teeming with crowds of people who shook soldiers' hands as they passed.

Residents recounted watching groups of masked men dig into roads with jackhammers in recent weeks, planting bombs and stringing copper wire to trigger them from houses and schools.

The militants mostly kept to themselves, but they distributed puritanical leaflets commanding women to cover themselves in black from head to toe, and stay home from work. They ordered tea shops shut and warned men not to smoke water-pipes.

"No one dared ask them why," said one father. Those who did drew unwanted scrutiny -- and a possible death sentence, he said.

Families told of Shiites who went shopping and never returned. One man said his brother had been kept and beaten in a makeshift prison with two dozen others.

At night, masked men stormed homes, robbing and carrying out extra-judicial killings. "Nobody knew whether they were al-Qaida or the police or just common criminals," said a baker named Ali. "It was total lawlessness."

Like other residents interviewed, Ali declined to give his full name in fear of reprisals from insurgents.

Insurgents blocked roads with concrete barriers taken from coalition forces. One checkpoint was so permanent that U.S. troops found a schedule naming those who manned it daily.

In some empty homes, guerrillas knocked small holes in the walls to use them as sniper positions. Below some, bullet casings littered the floor.

Half a dozen of houses containing weapon stashes, as well as one booby-trapped villa with a 155mm artillery shell rigged to blow behind its front door, were leveled. Many stashes were pointed out by residents.

One cache of rocket launchers and Kalashnikovs was found simply leaning against a wall in the back room of an abandoned home, along with handcuffs, ski masks, radio handsets and a video camera. A tape inside it showed a "Husky" American bomb disposal vehicle trying to de-mine a road in Baqouba.

Parsons eyes widened when he saw it: the driver and the vehicle work with his Stryker unit.

On the video, machine-gun fire erupted amid cries of "Allahu Akbar," God is Great, targeting the vehicle and a de-mining robot.

The footage cut abruptly to an unrelated, final scene: A closeup of a blood-splattered corpse whose blindfold had been pulled from his face. The man looked Iraqi and appeared to have been tortured.

Soldiers said they believed al-Qaida operatives had lived in Tahrir, using homes there as a kind of rear base. In the living room of one home residents said served as a medical aid station for wounded fighters were empty beds, neck braces and x-rays scattered across the floor.

Although insurgents claimed many houses in the name of the Islamic State of Iraq, they tried to erase their work with splotches of white paint two months ago -- realizing the proclamations might be too conspicuous. On some gates and walls, the paint was too thin to cover the black Arabic lettering.

The Islamic State is a coalition of eight insurgent groups. Late last month, it named a 10-member "Cabinet" complete with a "war minister," an apparent attempt to present the Sunni coalition as an alternative to the U.S.-backed, Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Parsons assured each family that U.S. troops and police would stay behind to keep insurgents out after he left, and establish a new police station.

Al-Qaida "had months and months to run rampant because we didn't have the forces available to come in here until now," Parsons said. "They controlled this neighborhood, but they don't anymore."

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I bet your four year-old is embarassed his Dad can't spell "ridiculous."

Uh oh, the spelling police is out. Just a quick look at your posts in this thread alone and I see several additional errors you can add to your list. Pointing out spelling mistakes is always a good smoke screen to the actual intent of the post. It goes well with the name calling and personal attacks. And by the way, I won't take it personaly since I kind of started it, but don't you worry about what embarasses my son. Kind of humorous statement coming from you. His mom is an English teacher, so she can work on the spelling and grammer with him.

Did you know this was happening over there:

Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: April 29, 2007

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Okay, so you're a sheep-- and even stupid as sheep go-- and TIS is your shepherd. Fine. Believe whom you want. It's easier than thinking for yourself. Personally, I tend to think these guys know more than TIS, and my dog knows more than you.

Again, you miss the big picture. Of course you can always find a negative spin or comment on any subject. I'll counter your article with this one:

There are 47 primary health-care centers under construction in northern Iraq. The first completed center recently opened in Salah Al Den Province: More than 112,000 people in the Salah Al Den Province are receiving healthcare from the first completed Primary Healthcare Center (PHC) in the north. Built by local construction companies with quality assurance managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this $3.35 million dollar facility provides routine and initial emergency care to patients including X-ray, laboratories and dentistry. Medical supplies and laboratory equipment were included in the contract to make this facility complete and operational.

On January 15, three new schools were opened in Mushahidah: an elementary school for girls, a secondary school for girls, and an elementary school for boys: “This is a great example for the projects in this area,” said Shiek Naif Moutlak, the chief of the city council. “We thank the coalition for all they have done and hope for other projects in the area to help the people.”

Link is here with more information:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzRhM...YWJhMzQwYzFjNjM

You are refusing to acknowledge that that our men and women on the ground in Iraq are doing thier jobs to the best of thier abilities and a lot good is coming out of it. You are only looking at the negative side, what the media is feeding YOU. I've never said I am happy about us being over there fighting and dieing for someone else's freedom, but do I think it will ultamitely make America (and the world) safer, yes. I DO think we need an exit stratagy (like Bush said in your sig), but not a timetable (unlike what Bush said in your sig). And the fact that a few generals speak out against the war is a mute point. Just like civilian society, the military is made up of a mix of men and women with a mix of conservative and liberal ideas. It is only reasonable to think that once they leave the public sector, a few will say things that conflict with the President's views and even thier past actions (see George Tenent). General Petraeus and his men should be given ample time to see thier plan through without the politics in Washington DC getting involved, remember Petreaus was only approved by Congress this year. I am not a "lever pulling" Republican, I believe a mix of conservative and liberal ideas is what is best for the County. I may lean one way or the other, and that has changed over my life span. But right now, I don't think leaving the Iraqis to figure it out on their own is a great idea.

** Please excuse the spelling and grammer errors.

You introjected your 4 year-old into the conversation and really shouldn't have expected a particularly genteel reply to your post. That said, this post is ever slightly more measured and I'll respond in kind.

You are refusing to acknowledge that that our men and women on the ground in Iraq are doing thier jobs to the best of thier abilities and a lot good is coming out of it.

This statement is not fair-- at least not the first half.

I said this:

Its not the troops--- they've done great. But they've been placed in a situation our military simply isn't designed to "fix." They deserve so much better than what their commander-in-chief has to offer.

Your claiming I slammed the troops is the type of reflexive comment folks of your political bent often make, despite the actual facts. Such tactics are "always a good smoke screen" and tend to obfuscate the facts.

Is "a lot of good...coming out of it?" Sure, there are hundreds of stories of good over the last four years. But is the overall net effect going to worth their incredible sacrifice? I hope so. I hope my impression is wrong. I have hoped I was wrong about this invasion from the start. I would love to be wrong on this.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I don't know why you guys are upset with TT. He consideres the United States the enemy in this war. He always has.

Here's another psycho who makes up the positons of those who disagree with him.

Why do you guys have to demonize everyone who disagrees with you?

You DEMONIZE yourself with posts that literally copy all the talking points of the democratic party! More and more "democrats" consider the United States as the "real" enemy anymore. They (democrats) want a socialistic government. One that's no longer ran by the majority. And one that allows any Tom-Dick- and Harry to come in and set up residence without prejudice. Plain and simple!

Hey moron, guess what? "The majority" of Americans favor a bill that calls for troop withdrawal by August 2008:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

You're outta touch! Guess that means you could be President! Congratulations!

Number one!!!!! Calling me a MORON is kettle meet pot!

Now.........as I have said before, THOSE SAME PEOPLE (89%) gave the big nod! WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE and do whatever we can to get the situation stabilized for the Iraqi people. I know it's hard for you to agree with the realative meaning of RESPONSIBLE! Left wingers could care less about that word or it's meaning. They RARELY take responsibility for anything, but they blame anyone they can to help position themselves for the next election.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I don't know why you guys are upset with TT. He consideres the United States the enemy in this war. He always has.

Here's another psycho who makes up the positons of those who disagree with him.

Why do you guys have to demonize everyone who disagrees with you?

You DEMONIZE yourself with posts that literally copy all the talking points of the democratic party! More and more "democrats" consider the United States as the "real" enemy anymore. They (democrats) want a socialistic government. One that's no longer ran by the majority. And one that allows any Tom-Dick- and Harry to come in and set up residence without prejudice. Plain and simple!

Hey moron, guess what? "The majority" of Americans favor a bill that calls for troop withdrawal by August 2008:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

You're outta touch! Guess that means you could be President! Congratulations!

Number one!!!!! Calling me a MORON is kettle meet pot!

Now.........as I have said before, THOSE SAME PEOPLE (89%) gave the big nod! WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE and do whatever we can to get the situation stabilized for the Iraqi people. I know it's hard for you to agree with the realative meaning of RESPONSIBLE! Left wingers could care less about that word or it's meaning. They RARELY take responsibility for anything, but they blame anyone they can to help position themselves for the next election.

Having a Bush supporter talk about responsibility or accountability is truly laughable. And a little pathetic.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Check out the experience of those first two generals you dismiss as just a "few ex-military guys". They're in a good position to know what they are talking about.

Where was all this courage and conviction during the leadup to the war? They as Generals are supposed to be leaders. Being a leader requires you to speak up and voice your concerns during mission planning. They chose to either remain silent or didn't have the bravado to get their concerns across during the planning phase. Now that they are out, they suddenly grow a pair and decide to go blabbing about how they knew this was wrong. Don't sound like too good of a leader from my vantage point, knowingly sending their troops into harms way when the odds were "decidedly against success in the mission." They either cared more about earning that next star rather than the well-being of their soldiers or they didn't have the courage necessary to fulfill the duties of their position.

I wonder if these guys are getting ready to sell a book.

I really expected to see a response to this when I came into work this morning.

All I recall hearing from our "supporters" on the left during the early part of the war (around the time Baghdad fell) is how the leadership (during their watch) over on the ground were screwing up, what with the rapid advance into the capital without leaving a securing force behind (among about 100 or so other arm chair quarterback observations).

Now that these 2 guys (out of all the Generals in theater) are running their mouths, they are suddenly are the most competent Generals ever to step foot on a battlefield. Tommy Franks doesn't subscribe to their complaints, and should he be the one retired General whos opinion should matter the most? What he says won't ever be taken into account because he doesn't bash Bush.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Check out the experience of those first two generals you dismiss as just a "few ex-military guys". They're in a good position to know what they are talking about.

Where was all this courage and conviction during the leadup to the war? They as Generals are supposed to be leaders. Being a leader requires you to speak up and voice your concerns during mission planning. They chose to either remain silent or didn't have the bravado to get their concerns across during the planning phase. Now that they are out, they suddenly grow a pair and decide to go blabbing about how they knew this was wrong. Don't sound like too good of a leader from my vantage point, knowingly sending their troops into harms way when the odds were "decidedly against success in the mission." They either cared more about earning that next star rather than the well-being of their soldiers or they didn't have the courage necessary to fulfill the duties of their position.

I wonder if these guys are getting ready to sell a book.

I really expected to see a response to this when I came into work this morning.

All I recall hearing from our "supporters" on the left during the early part of the war (around the time Baghdad fell) is how the leadership (during their watch) over on the ground were screwing up, what with the rapid advance into the capital without leaving a securing force behind (among about 100 or so other arm chair quarterback observations).

Now that these 2 guys (out of all the Generals in theater) are running their mouths, they are suddenly are the most competent Generals ever to step foot on a battlefield. Tommy Franks doesn't subscribe to their complaints, and should he be the one retired General whos opinion should matter the most? What he says won't ever be taken into account because he doesn't bash Bush.

You didn't hear those complaints from me. Conversely though, you didn't voice your concern with these guys judgement until now.

The truth is, you don't know what points/arguments they raised during mission planning. I heard than many of the brass raised concerns, just not publicly. Are you saying that generals should take all their disagreements with the Commander-in-chief public at the time they are having them? That's a switch.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was in CENTCOM (on Tommy Franks staff) at this time (lead-up, during, and after) and there was not 1 doubter there. The military has a habit of not airing our laundry out in public, some of us anyway, and there are many avenues available to make your voice heard during planning. I was in most of these meetings (these guys were there, too) and I can assure you that not one of them thought the plan was bad and felt the need to speak up then. They didn't need to. Public opinion was sitting ~85% and their job was safe. General Franks was adamant that anyone with any concerns should speak up. That's the kind of guy he was; he listened to his staff and took their advice into consideration. None of these guys spoke up.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I was in CENTCOM (on Tommy Franks staff) at this time (lead-up, during, and after) and there was not 1 doubter there. The military has a habit of not airing our laundry out in public, some of us anyway, and there are many avenues available to make your voice heard during planning. I was in most of these meetings (these guys were there, too) and I can assure you that not one of them thought the plan was bad and felt the need to speak up then. They didn't need to. Public opinion was sitting ~85% and their job was safe. General Franks was adamant that anyone with any concerns should speak up. That's the kind of guy he was; he listened to his

So are you saying you were present for all discussions with top brass?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was there leading up to the war, during the war, and up to 4 months after the fall of Baghdad. I know what happened in those meetings because I was sitting there myself.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I was there leading up to the war, during the war, and up to 4 months after the fall of Baghdad. I know what happened in those meetings because I was sitting there myself.

You were in meetings with who? Rumsfeld?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Rumsfeld was in a few in person (so was Colin Powell), otherwise he was linked via VTC. The General's staff were all present.

Still doubt me?