Iraq War Supporters

[Ironside]

Haven't we given Iraq enough?

Liberation from Saddam Hussein.

The lives of 2000 of our Brave and counting.

The almost 15,000 injured and counting.

$200,000,000,000.00 and counting.

But hey, if you support this QUAGMIRE, The Bush Administration has a plan for you. You can now put your money where your mouth is.

New twist on Iraq aid: U.S. seeks donations

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans "a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq."

Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed, because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.

But taxpayers already finance the projects the administration is seeking charitable donations for, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts, rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.

The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing - given needs at home - and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.

On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program, and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.

"I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best," said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. "It's going to be a hard sell."

The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, "Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts."

The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.

In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.

Natsios announced the Internet-based campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site "will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects."

Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this may be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.

Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote "awareness of disabilities and rights issues" and buying water pumps for farmers.

There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors "another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project."

All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved, or the project locations, because of "security issues in Iraq."

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly chaired.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from nonprofit groups working overseas, is supposed to help "provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs," according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, "I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government."

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and an associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

"Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations," said Lancaster, who also served as a former deputy administrator at USAID. "People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'"

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 nonprofits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site "a passive solicitation," saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were "looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment."

She also said some "people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief," but that others "will still want to help in Iraq." She said Iraqi-Americans had specifically asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's most controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

The group that set up the web site for USAID, DevelopmentSpace Foundation, Inc., operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions, and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

Although still in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for only 2.1 percent of all charity in the United States last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

"There is this blurring of the lines," he said. "A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources."

The Source

I have always said that those who support this war should enlist to fight it. I know that's not always possible, though. Well now, leave it to GW and Co. to find a way for YOU to contribute now, as well!

As for me? I won't be giving one red cent, simply because I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops, and to help them I have sent out packages and plan to send out more soon.

Well guys and gals... Let's have a show of hands and the amount you're planning on pledging to good 'ol Uncle Sam, for the "Iraqi People."

Ironside pledges $0.00, but offers a boot up the ass of our fearless leader GW Bush!

NEXT....

[Montgomery Burns]

...I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops...

Yeah right.

How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant? Why would you support people who are engaged in morally repugnant acts? If you think Bush is another Hitler, what does that make the troops carrying out his orders? If you think the US is occupying and oppressing Iraq, how can you support the people carrying out the "oppression" and the "occupation?" If you detest conservatives and think they're vile, rotten people, how can you support the troops who are notoriously for conservatism? If you see no difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian and a terrorist deliberately killing a civilian - and many liberals don't - then why wouldn't you feel the same way about the soldier as the terrorist? If the terrorists in Iraq are "freedom fighters" and "Minutemen," then doesn't that mean you are rooting for the US troops to lose?

I have always said that those who support this war should enlist to fight it.

About 80% of the military are conservatives. It's not coincidence that the Democrats try to disqualify the votes of overseas troops. Republicans have enlisted.

$200,000,000,000.00 and counting.

LIBERATING CHILDREN FROM TYRANNY IS CO$TING TOO MUCH!!

Btw, do you think it didn't cost anything to have US troops in the Mid East and patrolling the no-fly zones for 12 years? Or if people like you had their way - patrolling the no-fly zones for eternity?

[Shady]

I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops

That's just a meaningless talking point. You support neither.

Btw, do you think it didn't cost anything to have US troops in the Mid East and patrolling the no-fly zones for 12 years? Or if people like you had their way - patrolling the no-fly zones for eternity?

Exactly, not to mention the starving of millions of Iraqi children. These people have no real ideas, just a litany of complaints.

I have always said that those who support this war should enlist to fight it

Yes, the false premise that in order for anyone to feel as though a war is just and worth fighting they must also be fighting in it. However, Montgomery Burn's is right, the vast majority of the military is republican.

[Black Dog]

How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant?

The troops don't get to pick their missions. So if the civilian wonks in the Pentagon choose to send them off on a "morally repugnant" mission, that's not the fault of the grunts. Supporting the troops includes supporrting not sending them on morally repugnant missions and my wishing for their well-being and safe return when they are.

On the flip side, supporting sending troops on a morally repugnant mission with insufficient numbers and equipment, while backing an administration that cuts veteran's health care and benefit programs is not supporting the troops.

So say it loud, Monty and Shady: "I support our politicians and bureaucrats!"

[Cartman]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/iraq.poll/

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans.

Maybe Bush should start another war and cut taxes at the same time.

[Black Dog]

fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war

Also, just under half of American voted for Kerry in '04. COINCIDENCE? I think not. The evidence is clear: half of all Americans hate America.

[Montgomery Burns]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/iraq.poll/

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans.

Maybe Bush should start another war and cut taxes at the same time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again Cartman and CNN show their disingenuousness. Perhaps Cartman and Black Dog should have read more than CNN's typical misleading title.

Only 21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq, which began when a U.S.-led coalition invaded in 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win.

I believe 21 + 22 = 43

Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq -- but probably would not. And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable.

Is 34 higher than 43?

Apparently in Cartman/Black Dog's mathematically challenged world, it is.

[Montgomery Burns]

How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant?

The troops don't get to pick their missions. So if the civilian wonks in the Pentagon choose to send them off on a "morally repugnant" mission, that's not the fault of the grunts. Supporting the troops includes supporrting not sending them on morally repugnant missions and my wishing for their well-being and safe return when they are.

On the flip side, supporting sending troops on a morally repugnant mission with insufficient numbers and equipment, while backing an administration that cuts veteran's health care and benefit programs is not supporting the troops.

So say it loud, Monty and Shady: "I support our politicians and bureaucrats!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer the question: How can you support the troops when you think the mission they are on is morally repugnant?

*crickets chirping*

Come on, Black Dog. Shout it out loud, "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT THINK THE MISSION THEY ARE ON IS MORALLY REPUGNANT!!"

And the generals on the field could have had more troops if they asked for them; they did not. They are in charge, not the armchair generals in the press. And the US troops are the best equipped soldiers in the world, period.

[PocketRocket]

...I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops...

Yeah right.

How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant?

As previously stated, the troops are not given a choice as to where and how they serve.

But I support anyone who stands up and is willing to put his/her life on the line to protect his/her home, country, countrymen, etc.

I have said before, and will say again, a man or woman becomes a hero at the moment that they conciously decide that "I will risk my life for my country/countrymen".

Unfortunately, some risked, and some were killed.

The difference of opinion lay in whether or not this war had anything to do with the defense of the USA in particular, or the free world in general.

(My "hero" definition also includes firemen, policemen, etc. Any who go open-eyed into a high-risk job of protecting others)

$200,000,000,000.00 and counting.

LIBERATING CHILDREN FROM TYRANNY IS CO$TING TOO MUCH!!

Whose children??? Whose tyranny??? Why this particular tyrant, and no others who arguably pose bigger threats both to world peace, and to their own populace???

Sorry, but your glib, capital-letter response is just so much more baiting, trolling and misdirection.

Besides, "liberating children" was not part of Bush's agenda, nor was bringing democracy to Iraq, until well into the war.

Interesting how the reasons for this war have changed as time has passed.

Btw, do you think it didn't cost anything to have US troops in the Mid East and patrolling the no-fly zones for 12 years?  Or if people like you had their way - patrolling the no-fly zones for eternity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, with "eternity" a glib bit of misdirection, rather than response direct.

I am learning your style, Mr BURNS.

You have much knowledge and intelligence, and sometimes put forth brilliant posts.

And a knack for writing off points you can't argue against by utilizing techniques picked out above.

Unfortunately for you, glib sarcasm is something that is eventually seen through, and your didn't directly address the 200Billion$$$ figure, nor how much more that figure may become.

[PocketRocket]

From the same article....

He (Bush) said the United States would pull its troops out only when Iraqi forces were capable of taking control of their own country.

Hmmmm.

Who decides when they're ready???

[B. Max]

Haven't we given Iraq enough?

Liberation from Saddam Hussein.

The lives of 2000 of our Brave and counting.

The almost 15,000 injured and counting.

$200,000,000,000.00 and counting.

But hey, if you support this QUAGMIRE, The Bush Administration has a plan for you. You can now put your money where your mouth is.

New twist on Iraq aid: U.S. seeks donations

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans "a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq."

Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed, because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.

But taxpayers already finance the projects the administration is seeking charitable donations for, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts, rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.

The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing - given needs at home - and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.

On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program, and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.

"I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best," said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. "It's going to be a hard sell."

The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, "Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts."

The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.

In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.

Natsios announced the Internet-based campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site "will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects."

Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this may be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.

Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote "awareness of disabilities and rights issues" and buying water pumps for farmers.

There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors "another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project."

All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved, or the project locations, because of "security issues in Iraq."

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly chaired.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from nonprofit groups working overseas, is supposed to help "provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs," according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, "I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government."

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and an associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

"Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations," said Lancaster, who also served as a former deputy administrator at USAID. "People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'"

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 nonprofits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site "a passive solicitation," saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were "looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment."

She also said some "people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief," but that others "will still want to help in Iraq." She said Iraqi-Americans had specifically asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's most controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

The group that set up the web site for USAID, DevelopmentSpace Foundation, Inc., operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions, and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

Although still in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for only 2.1 percent of all charity in the United States last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

"There is this blurring of the lines," he said. "A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources."

The Source

I have always said that those who support this war should enlist to fight it. I know that's not always possible, though. Well now, leave it to GW and Co. to find a way for YOU to contribute now, as well!

As for me? I won't be giving one red cent, simply because I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. I only support the Troops, and to help them I have sent out packages and plan to send out more soon.

Well guys and gals... Let's have a show of hands and the amount you're planning on pledging to good 'ol Uncle Sam, for the "Iraqi People."

Ironside pledges $0.00, but offers a boot up the ass of our fearless leader GW Bush!

NEXT....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well i always thought that the cost of this should come out of iraqi oil revenues, but more americans were killed on 911. In fact during the civil war battles more than 20'000 would be killed in one day in a war that lasted four years. In pacific war battles more americans were killed in one day than all that are likely to be killed in iraq.

[Black Dog]

Once again Cartman and CNN show their disingenuousness.

...

Is 34 higher than 43?

Uh...

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans.

Is 43 less than 50? I thnk so.

Answer the question: How can you support the troops when you think the mission they are on is morally repugnant

Well here's the thing: I don't support the troops. I think U.S. troops in Iraq are fair game. However, I already explained how one can support the troops (that is, wish for their well-being) while recognizing the mission they have been placed on is morally wrong and unneccesary.

[Cartman]

Is 34 higher than 43?

Apparently in Cartman/Black Dog's mathematically challenged world, it is.

Why on earth would you lump together the data derived from the first two response categories and not the last two response categories? You either coalesce similar sentiment or you do not. If you choose not to, then you see the highest category by far is the belief that the US cannot win the war in Iraq.

Let us review the results again in an attempt to ascertain whether I and CNN are being honest or not. This time, I strongly suggest that you ask someone to help you follow along using a sock puppet (we will call him "Mr. Wizard") and by stacking Lego blocks (it might give you the much needed visual).

% who believe the US will definitely win 21%

% who believe the US will probably win 22%

Total % of those who think the US will win 43%

% who believe the US will probably not win 20%

% who believe the US cannot win 34%

Total % of those who think the US will not win 54%

Now, if you stack 43 blue Lego blocks beside 54 red Lego blocks, you will see that the red Lego blocks are taller! And if you stack 100 yellow Lego blocks beside the 43 blue Legos, you will see the 43 blocks are less than half the way up. "Mr. Wizard" should be nodding at this point. Just make sure your Lego are the same size though you silly Billy.

Once again Cartman and CNN show their disingenuousness. Perhaps Cartman and Black Dog should have read more than CNN's typical misleading title.

You make it sound as though I am colluding with CNN.

If we all agree that a half = 50%, and that 43% is less than a half, then the title "Poll: Fewer than half think the US will win in Iraq" is a very accurate description of the data gathered. Ergo, your attack on my integrity has once again been easily refuted.

Here's an idea Burns, if you don't want sarcastic responses, stop questioning my honesty. It is poor manners to do so in case you did not know.

[Shakeyhands]

Is 34 higher than 43?

Apparently in Cartman/Black Dog's mathematically challenged world, it is.

Why on earth would you lump together the data derived from the first two response categories and not the last two response categories? You either coalesce similar sentiment or you do not. If you choose not to, then you see the highest category by far is the belief that the US cannot win the war in Iraq.

Let us review the results again in an attempt to ascertain whether I and CNN are being honest or not. This time, I strongly suggest that you ask someone to help you follow along using a sock puppet (we will call him "Mr. Wizard") and by stacking Lego blocks (it might give you the much needed visual).

% who believe the US will definitely win 21%

% who believe the US will probably win 22%

Total % of those who think the US will win 43%

% who believe the US will probably not win 20%

% who believe the US cannot win 34%

Total % of those who think the US will not win 54%

Now, if you stack 43 blue Lego blocks beside 54 red Lego blocks, you will see that the red Lego blocks are taller! And if you stack 100 yellow Lego blocks beside the 43 blue Legos, you will see the 43 blocks are less than half the way up. "Mr. Wizard" should be nodding at this point. Just make sure your Lego are the same size though you silly Billy.

Once again Cartman and CNN show their disingenuousness. Perhaps Cartman and Black Dog should have read more than CNN's typical misleading title.

You make it sound as though I am colluding with CNN.

If we all agree that a half = 50%, and that 43% is less than a half, then the title "Poll: Fewer than half think the US will win in Iraq" is a very accurate description of the data gathered. Ergo, your attack on my integrity has once again been easily refuted.

Here's an idea Burns, if you don't want sarcastic responses, stop questioning my honesty. It is poor manners to do so in case you did not know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bwahahaha.... Now THAT was funny.... and mathematically correct!

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

Whose children??? Whose tyranny??? Why this particular tyrant, and no others who arguably pose bigger threats both to world peace, and to their own populace???

Sorry, but your glib, capital-letter response is just so much more baiting, trolling and misdirection.

Besides, "liberating children" was not part of Bush's agenda, nor was bringing democracy to Iraq, until well into the war.

Interesting how the reasons for this war have changed as time has passed.

What part of Iraqi Operation Freedom is so utterly confusing to you?

and your didn't directly address the 200Billion$$$ figure, nor how much more that figure may become.

And you haven't directly addressed the $200 billion and counting of how many decades the US would have to "contain" Saddam and his Spawns of Satan's Iraq.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Is 43 less than 50? I thnk so.

Is 63% more than 50? I think so.

Well here's the thing: I don't support the troops.

Finally Black Dog admits his true feelings. He wants the Islamfascists to win; I KNEW it! I knew it; I knew it; I knew it.

Game.Set.Match.

Black Dog is the voice of the hard left, ladies and gentleman. His agenda is clear for all to see.

[Montgomery Burns]

Cartman. Cartman, Cartman....

Radical leftists such as yourself are always so willfully blind to reality.

From the liberal CNN's survey:

21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq... Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win.  Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq.

21 + 22 + 20 = 63 in elementary math.

And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable.

63% for; 34 against. Looks like nearly double think the US will win.

But I have a question for Cartman, the guy who demands that people be "punted" from the forum for daring to use the word "socialist", but is mysteriously silent when radical leftists accuse President Bush of laughing at ni**ers who are dying in New Orleans......

1) Do you want the Islamofascists to be exterminated or are you hoping for them to win?

2) Do you wish Iraq to become some kind of a democracy or do you wish for them to fall under the dictatorship of a totalitarian regime?

3) Do you hate brown people and feel that they are second-class subhuman people - as Mohammed from IraqTheModelBlogpspot suggested?

4) Do you honestly think that the US cannot defeat Islamofascism?

5) Do you think that the American public will capitulate to Islamofascism, i.e., dhimmitude?

[Guest eureka]

Two apples and one Orange make three so long as they are put into the same basket?

[Black Dog]

Finally Black Dog admits his true feelings. He wants the Islamfascists to win; I KNEW it! I knew it; I knew it; I knew it.

Game.Set.Match.

Black Dog is the voice of the hard left, ladies and gentleman. His agenda is clear for all to see.

I could explain why tis is yet another example of a false dichotomy, but I know it would just be lost on you. Just as the distinction between believing the U.S. will win the war in Iraq and believing it is capable of winning is lost on you. Ta ta.

[masterkush]

Support the troops they do not choose thier battles

and if they should die in the sand alone

with their dying breathe i hope that their final thought is that

they died for the ELITE NAZis in America with their off shore bank accounts

and the puppet regime that is controled by them in America

so they finally know the truth about why they die and for who they die

[Shady]

Watch out everyone, troll alert!

[masterkush]

Watch out everyone, troll alert!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Support the troops they do not choose thier battles

and if they should die in the sand alone

with their dying breathe i hope that their final thought is that

they died for the ELITE NAZis in America with their off shore bank accounts

and the puppet regime that is controled by them in America

so they finally know the truth about why they die and for who they die

[Mary Jane]

there are no qualificastions to join the American armed forces

even bubba and his pals with grade 4 education can get in

I suppose this to allow the Mexican illegals a chance to gain citenzenship

I hope they dont get their hands on the button for the nukes they would probably aim that us

[PocketRocket]

there are no qualificastions to join the American armed forces

I believe you're correct. I've heard that you don't even need to know how to spell to enlist.

even bubba and his pals with grade 4 education can get in

Well, with only grade 4, where else could Bubba learn to "be all that he can be"???

I suppose this to allow the Mexican illegals a chance to gain citenzenship

And pay taxes.

I hope they dont get their hands on the button for the nukes they would probably aim that us

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. Did you remember to take that anti-paranoia pill with your morning coffee???

[Shady]

Iraqis Reach Breakthrough Deal on Charter

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi negotiators reached a breakthrough deal on the constitution Tuesday, and at least one Sunni Arab party said it would now urge its followers to approve the charter in this weekend's referendum. Suicide bombings and other attacks killed more than 50 people in the insurgent campaign aimed at intimidating voters.

Under the deal, the two sides agreed on a mechanism to consider amending the constitution after it is approved in Saturday's referendum. The next parliament, to be formed in December, will set up a commission to consider amendments, which would later have to be approved by parliament and submitted to a referendum.

The agreement boosts the chances that the draft constitution will be passed in Saturday's nationwide vote.

AP