“I’d also point out that my “incompetent leadership” comment applies even more resoundingly to the party of “no principles”.”

At last, something we agree upon… because neither party has principles it appears.

However, if he had been able to push this plan in the Senate, conservatives/Republicans would have undoubtedly called it an encroachment on the authority of the executive, or more simply, an attempt to micromanage the war. Last time I checked, any attempts from Democrats to change strategy in Iraq have been met with fury from people like yourself.

Also, I’d refer to you to the treatment of President Clinton by the GOP during the military involvement in Kosovo. Where was the desire to win there? Why were Republicans (such as current President) “tossing little political grenades” by way of demanding exit strategies or that we redeploy American troops?

I’d also point out that my “incompetent leadership” comment applies even more resoundingly to the party of “no principles”.

You totally missed the point. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, and Murtha were making public statements disparaging our military and tossing little political grenades at the administration shortly after the war began. Where was their desire to see victory? Where was their war winning plan? The only Democrat plan to ever be executed since Mar 2003 is “blame Bush!” There still is no plan to win – only a plan to ensure defeat regarding Iraq. No, Forrest, the Democrats are not without blame regarding the situation in Iraq. However they are quite adept at diverting any responsibility by blaming Bush. Your ”incompetent leadership” comment has the most merit when applied to the party of “no ideas.”

Sure, there had been great outcry for removal of SecDef Rumsfeld, but in my mind, that was warranted due to the lack of planning and “mistakes” that even you admitted were made.

There had been some support for redeployment plans back in (approxmiately) November 2005, but even then, it was a minority (albeit quite vocal) of Democrats that supported such a plan.

My point is this: Essentially the Democrats have not opposed the war in a practical sense until somewhat recently. They have gone along with the President legislatively, which is where they can have effect. Attempting to shuffle the blame onto them for their rhetoric rather than recognizing that the incompetent leadership with its lack of planning is the real problem seems to be misguided and dishonest partisanship to me.

Thats the biggest cause of the hell that is Iraq right now. Incompetence in planning for the post-Saddam era. Abu Ghraib, the protracted infiltration of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the exacerbations between Sunni/Shias it has caused, a sense of American occupation by most Iraqis, etc. are all a result of this lack of post-Saddam planning.

The number of viable people/organizations who have expressed this is numerous. Hell, this is the standard talking point for most GOP presidential candidates.

Your memory is apparently rather short-sighted. If you will recall after we summarily defeated the largest and supposedly the best Arab army in SWA directly on the heals of deposing the Taliban, the world took notice. Libya took notice; Lebanon took notice; Syria took notice; and even Iran and North Korea took notice. Why, because we were no longer blustering, we were putting our money where our mouth was – we were acting. The nation was united; the Congress was united and the sound bytes were oriented toward a resolved effort to violently respond to radical Islamic jihadists.

Our ‘problems’ arose when the all-knowing Democratic leadership decided to attack Bush rather than risk him executing a successful foreign policy. Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Reid, and others started comparing our troops to Gestapo and Soviet Gulag henchmen, and likened our actions to Pol Pot’s. We undermined our own national resolve to counter terrorism. We displayed to our enemy an erosion in our resolve, and they quickly associated the behavior with Somalia. They knew if they could inflict enough blood loss that we would quit and go home. George Bush put the world on notice and the Democrats behind his back whispered, “We don’t really mean it.” Political and tactical mistakes were made, but they were made worse by the amplifying and dissenting actions of our Democratic leadership.

The net result was/is an increase in loss of life; however, the Democrats do not care because they can pin it on Bush. Politically, Democrats have undermined our resolve and their actions have emboldened the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Iraq is worse, not because Bush invaded it; it is worse because the Democrats blew our national unity and resolve to Hell. Stand up and take credit for your real accomplishments! Yeah, like that would actually happen…

Your parole officer must have stopped reading you the article at that point, otherwise you would have had him keep going to get to the meat.

Screw it, Jerkagain. You have no intentions of living in reality, so I shall abandon all attempts at getting you and your leftard ilk to do so. We get it already: America bad, Al Qaeda good, Bush = Hitler, yada-yada-yada.

“It also modifies the original “no collaborative relationship” description, now saying there was “no collaborative operational relationship” (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

My point - is that this is what all governing bodies do - no matter their ideological, religious, or fanantical differences. And to spin it into something larger than it is is simply that — spin. No doubt - there is also much evidence of U.S. talks with Iraq over these same years, sureptitious and under the table. But with nothing “operational” between Iraq and Al Qaida - please - what again was the great urgency for invasion?

Funny how two reasonable groups of people (well, one reasonable group and then you guys) can read the same thing and come to two completely different conclusions:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp

Reality is never a liberal’s best friend.