"Dem Hawk" my ass. I've know since March 2004 that Murtha was nothin' but a big murthafurcker.

K.Lopez on Murtha's previous statements

I went into this war with my eyes open. I knew going in that it would be a long war with no definite ending. I remember thinking to myself when we invaded: we'll be here for decades. Iraq is not going to turn into Springfield or Ames; not in ten years, not in twenty, maybe never.

The Arabs simply have no tradition of Democratic government. Ever. We are trying to plant a seed in a ground that has proven markedly unfertile; only the strength of our arms and our resolve will see it take root.

How will we know we've succeeded? Well, if in fifty years or so a tourist walks down the broad avenues of Baghdad, looks at the pleasure barges plying the Euphrates, and thinks What a great vacation, we will have won. If the biggest complaint that Iraqis have a decade from now is handling an influx of visitors from other countries -- scholars, students, archaeologists, dreamers, pilgrims -- then we'll have won.

And I hope -- I dearly hope -- that the Iraqis will erect a monument to the thousands of brave Americans who died to bring this hopeful future to fruition.

Dammit Dr. Symes, I wanted to let Ace know that.

Oh well. I did have another, weaker point:

"I do question, however, the A.P.'s labeling of him as "hawkish"-- it whiffs of earnestness, as if it's extra-special super important news! when a hawkish Democrat-- as opposed to a regular ol' boring Democrat-- calls for withdrawal from Iraq."

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Unless the Demos resurrect Hitler and nominate him in 2008, there's no way in hell I could ever imagine voting for McCain. There's just no way.

Ace: me thinks McCain has it exactly bass-ackwards. Wouldn't the Iraqis be happier to know that we were thinking of leaving someday, that we weren't planning on sticking around as long as the Brits did after WWI?

Look at how nicely the people of the countries of Eastern Europe responded to their governments when those governments exhibited no problem in having the Soviets hang around for decades after they were 'liberated' from Nazi Germany. People don't view governments as legitimate if they don't object to being occupied (which is the way we will be viewed (if we're not viewed that way already) if we don't give the people of Iraq the idea that we are thinking of getting out).

It's shame so many people are worried about having their manhood questioned (maybe a cheap shot) that they can't see there's nothing wrong with insisting that Bush lay out a plan - complete with objectives, timetables and benchmarks for measuring our progress - for getting Iraq to the point where they can take care of their own country and we can pull our troops out. It the plan doesn't work out the way we hope, then we revise and try again. But to not have a plan is ridiculous.

Aren't we supposed to be 'transitioning' to full Iraqi sovereignty, and the sooner the better?

Or do the McCains of the world like the idea of our troops being stuck in Iraq until the 22nd century rolls around, taking roughly 1,000 casualties a year?

Look at how nicely the people of the countries of Eastern Europe responded to their governments when those governments exhibited no problem in having the Soviets hang around for decades after they were 'liberated' from Nazi Germany.

Right. Compare that with places like Western Germany, which asked the US to build permanent bases there. Can you spot the difference?

People don't view governments as legitimate if they don't object to being occupied (which is the way we will be viewed (if we're not viewed that way already) if we don't give the people of Iraq the idea that we are thinking of getting out).

Come again? I have no idea what you mean by this. Government "legitimacy" comes from one and only one thing: consent of the governed.

Easy there steve...

Bush has always said that we wouldn't stay any longer than the Iraqi's want us to. The game plan has always been, we will leave when the job is done. To put a timetable on it only gives the terrorists hope that if they can hold on until then, then they have a chance to win.

Bad strategy on our part to go down this road.

I think it's increasingly irrelevant what we decide to do. The government will be online in a month, the Iraqi security forces are strong, competent, and only getting moreso, and the vast majority of the people have adopted the ideals of democracy. I think we'll see troop withdrawals in six months anyway. If the pansies get their way, and we cut and run, I think the Iraqis will be alright. They'll have a tough fight on their hands, but they're capable of tackling it.
As long as we don't pull the rug out from under them like we did with South Vietnam. Seriously, wtf were we thinking?! (I say we, even though I was 2 yo at the time.)

I’m not a big McCain fan, but he gets full props for a well-written defense of the war and a takedown of his “peers” in the Senate. Seriously, can’t some of these Republican Senators’ jobs be outsourced or something? There must be plenty of kids in Ecuador or the Philippines that would do just as good a job for a hell of a lot less money.

By way of a cheap comparison to another profile in courage, here’s Bill Clinton standing tall on the war in Iraq. I smell another Carter coming on.

In the aftermath of 9/11, this president recognized that changes needed to be made and made fast. This whole terrorist problem was about to spiral out of control. Iraq wasn't invaded for WMD. Iraq was invaded to create a front to battle terrorist "over there instead of here," to create a model democratic nation for Arab Muslims -- whether they like it or not, and to set up a US presence in the Mid East.

I've got news for the Dem and Conservative wimps. This invasion/conversion is going exactly as planned, perhaps even faster than planned. The Bush Administration isn't going to come out and say it is going exactly as planned in Iraq and they are pleased with the progress so far. Though, I imagine they are, loss of life notwithstanding. But that is precisely why the Bush Admin cannot give props to the war plan; the opposition will throw the dead back in their faces. How can Bush say it is going so well in Iraq when we are losing so many of our brave young soldiers?

It's hard to spin the loss of life. But the cold hard truth is that is war; that is the price we pay for changing the world with military force rather than the slow, drawn-out, more-costly-over-the-long-run, and mostly ineffective diplomatic solutions.

"If not now, when? If not us, then who?"

Common sense tells us one can't turn an Arab-Muslim country into a Western-modeled democracy in a short span of time. But in only 32 months, the US-led coalition has brought Iraq very close to a full-fledged independent democracy.

Of course we, the US, will have a presence in Iraq for a long time. As Monty points out, it is beneficial for both parties. Why would we leave?

Permanent military bases in Iraq are extremely valuable and strategic. We won't have to beg Turkey and the other assholes in the area for a staging area or permission to cross their borders with equipment the next time we have to go to the Middle East and kick the asses of a terror supporting regime (see Iran, Syria).

With American military presence in the region, countries such as Iran and Syria will think twice about acting up. On the other hand, a complete military withdrawal will only cause the next Republican president, ten years from now, to repeat the entire process of invasion and regime change. That's if we get there in time, before the mushroom cloud. We're there for a long, long time. So get used to it.

The Dems now recognize this invasion/conversion is going to be successful. For there political careers to survive, they have two choices
1) Ramp up the anti-war rhetoric to force a complete troop withdrawal to ensure the defeat of the entire plan made by the Bush Administration. Or,

2) They can flip-flop and say they supported the effort all along (but would have handled it better).

Since the Dems are assholes, they will choose option 1 until it is so obvious that Iraq is peaceful and democratic that France finally offers troops to help the Coalition. Then the Dems will go with option 2.

After a landmark election, a multi-sect constitution drafted and approved, and another election just weeks away, why would anyone choose Now to politically compel a troop withdrawal? It makes no sense. Are things going too well in Iraq?

Sorry for the long rant, but someone needs to remind us why we are there again.

Steve:
"But to not have a plan is ridiculous."

And to show your plan to the enemy is stupid.

As long as we don't pull the rug out from under them like we did with South Vietnam. Seriously, wtf were we thinking?!

Well, the pro-war politicians really opened the door for the anti-war side by being so stupid and dishonest. It's depressing all around.

I agree with Bart. The Dems are in a last, desperate attempt to wrestle failure out of the hands of success. It is already clear, to those willing to see, that the Iraq war has already been won.

Also, I don't want to minimize the risks encountered by our service men and women. The risks and sacrifices are real. However, the Dummies gleefully calling Iraq a quagmire is so totally disengenious...that I am still amazed that the MSM parrots this viewpoint without question.

Case in point: Roughly 1,000 of our military personnel die in Iraq in a year (and not all are combat deaths). How low is that number?

Well, more people die in a year in the US falling down the stairs (1,598). Over three times as many people die of drowning every year (3,447).

(Odds of Dying)

That, my friends, speaks to the awesome prowess of the US fighting forces. And, speaks volumes regarding the Dems continual charade in calling this war a quagmire.

"Well, the pro-war politicians really opened the door for the anti-war side by being so stupid and dishonest. It's depressing all around."

Do you mean re: Vietnam, or now?

TheShadow,

Those are some interesting statistics. Obviously we need a Congressional panel to investigate, and then demand that President Bush issue a timetable for progress on a program to keep U.S. military off of stairs, and away from swimming pools or retention ponds.

Then we'll know who the real leaders in Congress are.

BUSH DOESN'T CARE
WHEN SOLDIERS FALL DOWN STAIRS!

Also,

BUSH THE CLOWN
LETS OUR SOLDIERS DROWN!!!

John: I was talking about Vietnam. (Incrementalism, cover-ups, Nixon, and all that.) I'm not defending the pro-communists, I'm just saying that the anti-communists handed them their victory on a plate.

As for Iraq, I agree with you that victory is near-certain at this point. Thank God.

I second every thing the Shadow said, and let me add this; our guys have been fighting the nastiest kind of war a standing military can fight-a guerrilla campaign in which the enemy thinks nothing of killing scores of women and children, the guerrillas come primarily from other countries, and they are driven by a mindless fanaticism. This "insurgency" is worse than anything the British fought with in Malaysia or the Frogs in Algeria. And yet the Army and Marines still have managed to kill these fuckers by the truckload while managing to avoid mass civilian casualties. Anyone who tries to paint Iraq as a defeat is a partisan cynic opportunists or defeatist to the point of self delusion.

Wouldn't the Iraqis be happier to know that we were thinking of leaving someday

They know that now because they're bleeding every day in larger and alrger numbers learning how to do it themselves.

Wouldn't the Iraqis be happier to know that we were thinking of leaving someday

The premise of this rhetorical question is flawed. It assumes that whether or not we leave is decided only by America.

In fact, the democratically elected government of Iraq can order us to leave any time they want, and we would have to comply. Bush has said this explicitly, and it's clear from a legal and moral perspective; obviously, Iraq is their country, not ours.

SJKevin - yeah, I hear you. It's one of the reasons I don't like Nixon at all. It's a shame because, militarily, we really got our act together after Tet... Ah, what might have been?

FINALLY! Someone is with me on McCain!!

Now, come one everyone! Come on board!

Hey what can I say? I like the guy. He pisses all the right people off. Did he not show up big at the last Republican convention? huh? He's my boy.. Fo life.

Ace, where's my scripts? How am I supposed to get James Woods to sign on without no f#cking script?

He pisses all the right people off.

Like his only real constituency, the MSM?

He pisses the wrong people off too. Always nice when he delivers, but allies like McCain are why bullet proof vests have plates on the back.

In order for McCain to become President, he'd first have to win the Republican Primary.
To do that... he'd have to be a Republican.

Have all of you McCain boosters forgotten NcCain/Feingold? The law that says the First Amendment wasn't intended to cover political speech... kind of what we're doing here now?

I like McCain myself. I do not think he's a back stabber as some have suggested ; he is independent minded but he is loyal to Bush wehen it counts. If Bush could communicate half as well as McCain, the war in iraq would not be so unpopular (well maybe it doesn't matter afterall due to the prevalence of BDS)

I think McCain or Rudy may be the only candidates capable of beating the Hildebeast, but both are too liberal to gain the Republican nomination.

The Iraq War was over even before Bush declared an end to major combat operations. You can't really call it a war when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform or even come from the same country. We had killed or captured all the uniformed Iraqis a month or so after the war started. Therefore, everyone shall immediately begin referring to the Iraq War as the Iraq Peacekeeping Mission.

I don't care if he's a good Republican or not.

I just wish he was a decent conservative.

He's not.