British Chief of Army suggests pulling out of Iraq

[jdobbin]

No. From what I understand, he had no orders to give as he was in shock so the other officers had to take over.

Jobbin, as you seem to think errors have occured. please tell us exactly what you think should happen right now in Iraq if you were in charge of the whole show?

I was joking about him giving orders. If anything, the captain's actions prior to hitting the iceberg were questionable.

I think there is pretty much no question that a civil war is in the early stages of developing. There are really only three choices: 1. Status quo. Do nothing different and hope for improvement. 2. Add even more troops to the fight and hope that quells the sectarian violence. 3. Begin a timetable for withdrawal and transfer authority to the Iraqi troops whether they are ready or not.

I think that Bush or the next president will eventually reach the number 3 choice. The first two don't offer much hope for anyone.

[KrustyKidd]

I think that Bush or the next president will eventually reach the number 3 choice. The first two don't offer much hope for anyone.

Except the Iraqi people. I was hoping for less military solution and more political such as pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to shut down the 'Rat Lines' etc combined with more money put internationaly into Iraq to pay for Iraqi soldiers and police to pay for wages and better equipment.

Withdrawing suddenly leaving the Iraqi people and government in the lurch is not on anybody's timetable.

[jdobbin]

Except the Iraqi people. I was hoping for less military solution and more political such as pressure on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to shut down the 'Rat Lines' etc combined with more money put internationaly into Iraq to pay for Iraqi soldiers and police to pay for wages and better equipment.

Withdrawing suddenly leaving the Iraqi people and government in the lurch is not on anybody's timetable.

James Baker is hoping that he can get Syria and Iran to help but it is in their interest to prolong the pain for both the U.S. and Iraq.

Not withdrawing also has consequences. The death rate for U.S. soldiers is four a day. That could go up if internal Iraqi strife escalates. It shows no sign of endiing. Stay the course might get a whole lot bloodier and offer no long term peace.

[jdobbin]

Here is the latest on James Baker's mission.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes

The word withdrawal is being used in this report.

[KrustyKidd]

Here is the latest on James Baker's mission.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes

The word withdrawal is being used in this report.

Report is readable, realistic and, is slightly anti Bush which is refreshing. However, once again, it is opinion rather than factual reporting as there is no quote saying withdrawl.

Same ppoint Jobbin. Leave the sensationalism alone and go for the facts. Who said what and, in what context. I doubt not that there are many high profile people who share your view so find them and quote them rather than deal with opinion peices that review reports and such without actually quoting from them.

[jdobbin]

Same ppoint Jobbin. Leave the sensationalism alone and go for the facts. Who said what and, in what context. I doubt not that there are many high profile people who share your view so find them and quote them rather than deal with opinion peices that review reports and such without actually quoting from them.

High profile Republicans have now broken with the Bush Doctrine. That isn't sensationalism. It's a fact. They just don't know what to do about it. And come two weeks from now, quite a few of them will be relieved of their responsibility of making that decision in the Congress.

If you have any ideas that the U.S. could use to extract itself, I'd be interested in hearing. At the moment, they are bogged down and Iraq is not safer. I don't know that even more troops would be able to do the job. At the political cost to Bush for doing that would be a presidency that is not long lame duck but gasping for breath as Republicans all over start jumping ship as they contemplate the disaster of 2008.

[KrustyKidd]

High profile Republicans have now broken with the Bush Doctrine. That isn't sensationalism. It's a fact. They just don't know what to do about it. And come two weeks from now, quite a few of them will be relieved of their responsibility of making that decision in the Congress.

I googled for something to support your contention that they are spilitting with the party but didn't find anything with substance. Perhaps you could provide some of your intelligence

If you have any ideas that the U.S. could use to extract itself, I'd be interested in hearing. At the moment, they are bogged down and Iraq is not safer. I don't know that even more troops would be able to do the job. At the political cost to Bush for doing that would be a presidency that is not long lame duck but gasping for breath as Republicans all over start jumping ship as they contemplate the disaster of 2008.

Yes I do. First however, the US is not pulling out of Iraq and, it's mission has not changed. They will see it through with the end result being an Iraq that can stand on it's own. Now, that said, there will be a lot of compromise and it may not be the picture of perfection that Bush and company (as well as myself and many right wingers) envisioned but, there will be no mass exiting of troops in the near future. As a matter of fact, there may even be more sent there in the near term.

My plan would be to push the Iraqis harder, force them to take hard measures on militias and such. Clean their own house of corruption amongst officials and set bench marks for progress. As for discussing US withdrawling troops on a timetable, that would be the worst thing to ever publicize as it would be cashed in on by insurgents to no end. A withdrawl would occur only by the benchmark conditions being met in whatever phase and measure of success the Iraqis and US administration and military agreed on.

[jdobbin]

I googled for something to support your contention that they are spilitting with the party but didn't find anything with substance. Perhaps you could provide some of your intelligence

Yes I do. First however, the US is not pulling out of Iraq and, it's mission has not changed. They will see it through with the end result being an Iraq that can stand on it's own. Now, that said, there will be a lot of compromise and it may not be the picture of perfection that Bush and company (as well as myself and many right wingers) envisioned but, there will be no mass exiting of troops in the near future. As a matter of fact, there may even be more sent there in the near term.

My plan would be to push the Iraqis harder, force them to take hard measures on militias and such. Clean their own house of corruption amongst officials and set bench marks for progress. As for discussing US withdrawling troops on a timetable, that would be the worst thing to ever publicize as it would be cashed in on by insurgents to no end. A withdrawl would occur only by the benchmark conditions being met in whatever phase and measure of success the Iraqis and US administration and military agreed on.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/40491

http://www.newsnetnebraska.org/vnews/displ...6/4533d19a9c98b

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=8927

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbro...go_b_31939.html

You should look harder. Republicans are scrambling for ideas.

As for pushing the Iraqis harder, they are. They have been. It isn't working. It won't work. If Bush holds fast, we will be having this same conversation next year and the year after.

[KrustyKidd]

You should look harder. Republicans are scrambling for ideas.

'I' should look harder? This is supposed to be your proof that people are bailing the Republican party en masse and here I see in your links nothing but reporting about Iraq and the need to do somthing better. Nothing about people doing anything but saying they need a new strategy. A point I think that I conceed given the past three month's activities. So, I will stop pressing your lack of proof of the falacy of people bailing from the party if you will stop pressing this issue in order for us to move on. And, as a bonus, I will not ask you for direct quotes which ar always lacking in your proof as they always seem to be a reporter giving his or her interpretation of the events. If you agree, then, we can move onto the next phase which is the people staying with the party but working towards a change in strategy.

As for pushing the Iraqis harder, they are. They have been. It isn't working. It won't work. If Bush holds fast, we will be having this same conversation next year and the year after.

They haven't even started pushing them. For one thing they cannot set a timetable for withdrawl as it would condemn the mission to fail. This phsycology works against them as well in that the Iraqi government begins to depend on the US rather than become what they have to be. As for Bush holding, he also has conceeded the present course is not working and is changing the strategy - all with the intention of 'staying the course' of course. Just as the US will no matter who is in charge.

[jdobbin]

'I' should look harder? This is supposed to be your proof that people are bailing the Republican party en masse and here I see in your links nothing but reporting about Iraq and the need to do somthing better. Nothing about people doing anything but saying they need a new strategy. A point I think that I conceed given the past three month's activities. So, I will stop pressing your lack of proof of the falacy of people bailing from the party if you will stop pressing this issue in order for us to move on. And, as a bonus, I will not ask you for direct quotes which ar always lacking in your proof as they always seem to be a reporter giving his or her interpretation of the events. If you agree, then, we can move onto the next phase which is the people staying with the party but working towards a change in strategy.

They haven't even started pushing them. For one thing they cannot set a timetable for withdrawl as it would condemn the mission to fail. This phsycology works against them as well in that the Iraqi government begins to depend on the US rather than become what they have to be. As for Bush holding, he also has conceeded the present course is not working and is changing the strategy - all with the intention of 'staying the course' of course. Just as the US will no matter who is in charge.

It doesn't matter what quotes I show you. You will say it is context.

In 15 days it won't matter. The Republicans are in a lot of trouble and it is Iraq that is driving that drop in the polls whether it is the Wall Street Journal poll, AP poll, Newsweek poll or Time poll or Charlie Cook's race tracking polls.

Few Republicans ask Bush to barnstorm for them because it hurts rather than helps their campaign.

The word timetable is being whispered and in some cases being shouted by Republicans desperate for it to end in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15363557/

Bush will continue to say "stay the course" until he can't stay the course.

"For example, Baker teased our curiosity in an ABC-TV interview last Sunday with this: "I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives — the ones that are out there in the political debate — of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run,' "

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4276763.html

Most say that two options are likely.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/sp...ew/15816451.htm

"5. Draw down U.S. forces, but insert more teams of U.S. military trainers inside Iraqi security force units. A good idea - but military experts say it will be hard to find enough additional U.S. trainers, since this requires stripping officers out of their units.

6. Give the Maliki government a finite deadline to design a reconciliation pact with the Sunnis, and ratchet up the pressure by setting a timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. forces - say, in two years. Then convene a conference of Iraq's neighbors and big powers to help stabilize the country. Such a conference would require the White House to deal with Iran (Baker supports negotiating with one's enemies)."

Bush keeps putting obstacles up though. No negotiation with Iran. No draw down before the job is done.

One thing is certain, poll after poll show that Americans have lost faith in Bush and the Republicans from waging this war.

"A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101901907.html

[jbg]

What people do not understand is that Baker represents the "isolationist" wing of the Republicans and always has. He was part of Bush Sr.'s adminstration. He is not known for even liking Bush Jr. He is, basically, a "has been".

[jdobbin]

What people do not understand is that Baker represents the "isolationist" wing of the Republicans and always has. He was part of Bush Sr.'s adminstration. He is not known for even liking Bush Jr. He is, basically, a "has been".

He's also the man who helped the legal team win Bush the presidency. Some "has been."

You've already stated that Iraq should remain a colony of the U.S. for safety reasons but it isn't likely to happen.

[KrustyKidd]

It doesn't matter what quotes I show you. You will say it context.

No. Just find the quotes or a factual news story with quotes in context. Your entire post is composed of one opinion piece with links to mosely other opinion pieces. A very strange way to make a point that you contend is based on fact.

So, you cannot prove that senior Republicans are breaking with the party, and that there are calls for an immediate withdrawl. Interesting given that you entire argument is just that.

On the other hand, in one of your links, you managed to bolster my argument of setting up a timetable for Iraq to have benchmarks as I mentioned in my last post. It's this one from MSNBC and is a report on thisNew York Times article.

[jdobbin]

No. Just find the quotes or a factual news story with quotes in context. Your entire post is composed of one opinion piece with links to mosely other opinion pieces. A very strange way to make a point that you contend is based on fact.

So, you cannot prove that senior Republicans are breaking with the party, and that there are calls for an immediate withdrawl. Interesting given that you entire argument is just that.

On the other hand, in one of your links, you managed to bolster my argument of setting up a timetable for Iraq to have benchmarks as I mentioned in my last post. It's this one from MSNBC and is a report on thisNew York Times article.

I never said immediate withdrawal if you check all of what I've written. I said they were calling Iraq a mess and that they need to consider their options quickly which included declaring victory and pulling back and out.

And you said earlier that they wouldn't name a timetable because that would play into the hands of the insurgents. It looks like that's exactly what they are planning although it is just as likely to end in failure because nothing except the Iraqis themselves can stop sectarian violence. They don't seem to be capable of it.

In 15 days, Iraq is very likely going to take its toll on the Republicans. If that doesn't put a scare into them for 2008, nothing will.

[KrustyKidd]

I never said immediate withdrawal if you check all of what I've written. I said they were calling Iraq a mess and that they need to consider their options quickly which included declaring victory and pulling back and out.

No but you used this in your first post;

LONDON — Britain's new army chief has called for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon," warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to a published interview.

Then defended it with this;

His comments seemed pretty clear to most people who read them. He said the British have to get out of Iraq soon, not five years from now, not ten years from now.

And this;

I think he is leaning to withdrawing. Is that what your take on his interview is?

And here;

The word withdrawal is being used in this report.

So given that the mission was to go on until Iraq was sucessful and most if not all objectives met then withdraw. What do you mean by withdraw before they are completed if not immediate? You used 'soon' What does that mean if not before anything is complete or sucessful?

And you said earlier that they wouldn't name a timetable because that would play into the hands of the insurgents. It looks like that's exactly what they are planning although it is just as likely to end in failure because nothing except the Iraqis themselves can stop sectarian violence. They don't seem to be capable of it.

Benchmarks are not a timetable. For example; secure a certain area by July is not to be taken as 'Secure it by July or the US will pull out so many troops' it means shoot for that goal or, we will have to reasses your ability in that particular area. It does however, set goals and objectives for the Iraqis to meet. With an overall score being able to be put to it to see if they are doing well or not even trying. Therefore, it has no actual time requirement but, can be defined easier.

[jdobbin]

I never said immediate withdrawal if you check all of what I've written. I said they were calling Iraq a mess and that they need to consider their options quickly which included declaring victory and pulling back and out.

No but you used this in your first post;

LONDON — Britain's new army chief has called for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon," warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to a published interview.

Then defended it with this;

His comments seemed pretty clear to most people who read them. He said the British have to get out of Iraq soon, not five years from now, not ten years from now.

And this;

I think he is leaning to withdrawing. Is that what your take on his interview is?

And here;

The word withdrawal is being used in this report.

So given that the mission was to go on until Iraq was sucessful and most if not all objectives met then withdraw. What do you mean by withdraw before they are completed if not immediate? You used 'soon' What does that mean if not before anything is complete or sucessful?

And you said earlier that they wouldn't name a timetable because that would play into the hands of the insurgents. It looks like that's exactly what they are planning although it is just as likely to end in failure because nothing except the Iraqis themselves can stop sectarian violence. They don't seem to be capable of it.

Benchmarks are not a timetable. For example; secure a certain area by July is not to be taken as 'Secure it by July or the US will pull out so many troops' it means shoot for that goal or, we will have to reasses your ability in that particular area. It does however, set goals and objectives for the Iraqis to meet. With an overall score being able to be put to it to see if they are doing well or not even trying. Therefore, it has no actual time requirement but, can be defined easier.

None of those quotes said "immediate withdrawal." I said they were talking about some form of getting out if Iraq and "soon" was the direct quote from the Daily Mail.

Benchmarks sound like a timetable to me, especially when I hear 90 days to do this and a month to do that. These were some of the numbers from links you have put up. Those are benchmarks?

[KrustyKidd]

None of those quotes said "immediate withdrawal." I said they were talking about some form of getting out if Iraq and "soon" was the direct quote from the Daily Mail.

Oh, so then they approve of the benchmark idea then? So that is what 'withdrawl' means. I appoligise, I thought they just meant to simply get out now or 'soon' with little consideration for what is left behind.

Benchmarks sound like a timetable to me, especially when I hear 90 days to do this and a month to do that. These were some of the numbers from links you have put up. Those are benchmarks?

No. A timetable for withdrawl would be 90 days to do this or we pull out that. A benchmark is try to do this within 90 days or we will try something else.

[jdobbin]

Oh, so then they approve of the benchmark idea then? So that is what 'withdrawl' means. I appoligise, I thought they just meant to simply get out now or 'soon' with little consideration for what is left behind.

No. A timetable for withdrawl would be 90 days to do this or we pull out that. A benchmark is try to do this within 90 days or we will try something else.

This is what they were debating on Meet the Press today. Is the benchmark a deadline where withdrawal is the punishment or it something else?

Everyone is waiting James Baker's report. But now they say that could be some time next year. Some Republicans were hoping for better news now but that is not likely.

At any rate, Charles Cook says it is highly likely that the decision will be removed from several Republicans as they will no longer be part of the Congress. Election is in two weeks.

Meanwhile, Iraq offers no solutions except "stay the course" and that is not resonating with too many people anymore.

[KrustyKidd]

This is what they were debating on Meet the Press today. Is the benchmark a deadline where withdrawal is the punishment or it something else?

No. A benchmark is a measurement of sucess or failure. It is then used to determine what action should be taken. And, what punitive measures might go with it for example 'withdrawl' of certain areas or, completely. However, that is all dependent on the overall rate of that sucess or failure rather than some glib statement of how things not working so 'let's pack up!'

In any case, while saying that they will not withdraw and thereby giving insurgents no timetable to work on it does provide a 'to do' list to the Iraqi government which they know they will be accountable for. None of the list is a must do or else but when all added up, it would certainly be a reason to work for it or else.

Everyone is waiting James Baker's report. But now they say that could be some time next year. Some Republicans were hoping for better news now but that is not likely.

At any rate, Charles Cook says it is highly likely that the decision will be removed from several Republicans as they will no longer be part of the Congress. Election is in two weeks.

That's US politics and I believe that nothing would change no matter who is in charge.

Meanwhile, Iraq offers no solutions except "stay the course" and that is not resonating with too many people anymore.

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions: Do you think that having a stable and democratic Iraq is worth something? I mean, is it better than having something run by a dictator or a Jihadist type of entity?

If you answered yes which I know you did, what would it be worth? One day's effort, two, three what? How much money? How many lives? How much time? People on the left gave Saddam twelve years and wanted to give him more, but only now give the Iraqi people four years. What is up with that?

[jdobbin]

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions: Do you think that having a stable and democratic Iraq is worth something? I mean, is it better than having something run by a dictator or a Jihadist type of entity?

If you answered yes which I know you did, what would it be worth? One day's effort, two, three what? How much money? How many lives? How much time? People on the left gave Saddam twelve years and wanted to give him more, but only now give the Iraqi people four years. What is up with that?

A stable government that Iraqis themselves created would have been best. This idea that you can impose a democracy was the biggest fallacy.

The invasion wasn't worth it. They'd have gotten better results keeping up sanctions and a blockade.

There was insufficient planning for an occupation. Many figured that the U.S. could win a war but would have a hard time winning a peace in a place where religious animosity had been simmering for years.

With a mere shrug, you say that in two weeks, the U.S. will have an election and it will be business as usual. I disagree. Two more years of the same will devastate the Republican party.

The problem is that the "benchmarks" you mention that are needed to motivate Iraqis are unlikely to be met because the government remains impotent outside the Green Zone.

[KrustyKidd]

A stable government that Iraqis themselves created would have been best. This idea that you can impose a democracy was the biggest fallacy.

Couldn't agree with you more. Good thing they only created the conditions for it to take place then.

The invasion wasn't worth it. They'd have gotten better results keeping up sanctions and a blockade.

Saddam was probably the least of the reasons for the invasion. Same with WMDs.

There was insufficient planning for an occupation. Many figured that the U.S. could win a war but would have a hard time winning a peace in a place where religious animosity had been simmering for years.

Also agree with you there. Bad int to boot.

With a mere shrug, you say that in two weeks, the U.S. will have an election and it will be business as usual. I disagree. Two more years of the same will devastate the Republican party.

You put too much faith in party politics. They are all the same so, no matter who wins, expect more of the same.

The problem is that the "benchmarks" you mention that are needed to motivate Iraqis are unlikely to be met because the government remains impotent outside the Green Zone.

Not really but, not as effective as they certainly would like to be. As for benchmarks, let's wait and see what they are or, what is floated.

[jdobbin]

Couldn't agree with you more. Good thing they only created the conditions for it to take place then.

Saddam was probably the least of the reasons for the invasion. Same with WMDs.

You put too much faith in party politics. They are all the same so, no matter who wins, expect more of the same.

Not really but, not as effective as they certainly would like to be. As for benchmarks, let's wait and see what they are or, what is floated.

They did more than create the conditions. They imposed their will. I'm not sure that Iraqis were prepared for it given their long simmering religious and political/traibal differences.

Saddam was the reason the U.S. gave. That and weapons.

If people are angry enough that they were lied to about the reasons for the war, they'll vote the rascals out. You think it will make no difference but it has in the past.

The Iraq War is the leading issue in this campaign.

Even Tony Snow is having trouble explaining benchmarks and deadlines. He bumped his head on the microphone, he was was so flapped.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/061024/...q_bush_words_dc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391532/

Charles Cook's report shows that Republicans are on the ropes come this election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15403999/

I have a hard time believing the Iraqis are capable of meeting any benchmarks.

[KrustyKidd]

They did more than create the conditions. They imposed their will. I'm not sure that Iraqis were prepared for it given their long simmering religious and political/traibal differences.

Just too dumb right?

Saddam was the reason the U.S. gave. That and weapons.

They were good reasons too. Because there were more complex ones as well that you didn't notice is not his fault - it's yours for following the snadwhich boards. Surprised that the 'blood for oil' one is still not many left wingers reasons.

If people are angry enough that they were lied to about the reasons for the war, they'll vote the rascals out. You think it will make no difference but it has in the past.

Did not fifteen of the fifteen UNSC members all agree that something be done about Saddam's WMDs?

The Iraq War is the leading issue in this campaign.

Probably and, the Republicans will probably lose. And, the Dems will take over with the same mission with a re syntaxed battle plan that adds up to the same thing. Feel happier now?

Even Tony Snow is having trouble explaining benchmarks and deadlines. He bumped his head on the microphone, he was was so flapped.

""He became so exasperated at one briefing he bumped his head on the microphone as a reporter complained of contradictions in the distinctions he cited between "tactics" and "strategy."

"Sorry, we're talking different languages," he said.""

Strategy is the overal mission and tactics is how you are going to do it.

I have a hard time believing the Iraqis are capable of meeting any benchmarks.

Just a bunch of sand niggers to you or what? More of them give a hoot about their country than Canadians do about here and you figure that we should just give up after four years. Yet, figured Saddam should have run the place for eterity, flaunt resolution after resolution.

[Black Dog]

Just too dumb right?

You should read for comprehension. It's easy and fun!

I'm not sure that Iraqis were prepared for it given their long simmering religious and political/traibal differences.

Just a bunch of sand niggers to you or what?More of them give a hoot about their country than Canadians do about here and you figure that we should just give up after four years.

You really can't tell your arse from your elbow. In one breath, you bitch out a poster for daring to suggest that maybe the conditions in Iraq were such that the formation of a western style democracy was unrealistic (even going so far as to imply rascism on the part of said poster). Then, in the next breath, you indicate that the Iraqi people who care so much about their country cannot possibly become a democracy without the hand of the Great White Father to guide them. It's all quite comic, really.

Yet, figured Saddam should have run the place for eterity, flaunt resolution after resolution

Saddam is immortal?

[jdobbin]

Just too dumb right?

They were good reasons too. Because there were more complex ones as well that you didn't notice is not his fault - it's yours for following the snadwhich boards. Surprised that the 'blood for oil' one is still not many left wingers reasons.

Did not fifteen of the fifteen UNSC members all agree that something be done about Saddam's WMDs?

Probably and, the Republicans will probably lose. And, the Dems will take over with the same mission with a re syntaxed battle plan that adds up to the same thing. Feel happier now?

""He became so exasperated at one briefing he bumped his head on the microphone as a reporter complained of contradictions in the distinctions he cited between "tactics" and "strategy."

"Sorry, we're talking different languages," he said.""

Strategy is the overal mission and tactics is how you are going to do it.

Just a bunch of sand niggers to you or what? More of them give a hoot about their country than Canadians do about here and you figure that we should just give up after four years. Yet, figured Saddam should have run the place for eterity, flaunt resolution after resolution.

Didn't say dumb. I think disorganized and hostile to one another in the extreme. In some case, out of touch because they are never out with the people anymore.

I never thought it was about the oil and Bush taking it over. Just the same, I don't think he would have sent troops to Somalia, Sudan or wherever. Iraq has always been his main focus.

Did the the UNSC authorize invasion?

I think the Democrats will begin pulling troops out of Iraq. What do they have to prove there. Nothing. It won't happen till they win the presidency though.

I watched the whole clip of Tony Snow. They were asking him on benchmarks, times, tactics and strategy. He was juggling so fast and then whack!

I wish you'd resist using profanity or racial slurs. It doesn't help the conversation. Given what Greg said about incendiary language, I don't think it raises the level of debate. In fact, in some cases might risk seeing you banned. I've never used those words. I've never thought those words.

I think Iraq is at awar with itself. It is tribal which even they won't deny. It is religious. It is political. And it is a classic civil war. They might care about their people but unlike Canadians, they kill each other over it.

This is why I say I cannot see them meeting any benchmarks.

What penalty could possibly get them to stop? There is none. They will have to want to stop and right now they don't.