The “U” argument is petty and betrays the lack of any type of substance beneath anything you say. I don’t doubt that you might have some interesting things to say, but as of right now, they’re all masked by a load of condescending crap.

That said, I’m not “insulting” him simply for thinking differently. I certainly appreciate differences of opinions as more often than not, there’s always a thing or two taken to heart. I’ve always listened to his interviews and found them thought-provoking, but there is no excuse for that trip to the dead marshes of Syria.

As bad as Pelosi was in making her hadjj, it was just another dumocrat way of politically emasculating the Bush doctrine. But for a POTUS pretender, it is absolutely mind boggling, sucking up to a terror puppetmaster. Isn’t Bashir Assad a doctor?

Name one POTUS contender that ever made such a trip to a hostile nation? I’m just trying to comprehend what’s so precious about making that trip; bookended by us catching Syria receiving nuke technology and Israel’s Osirik raid redux.

As for Ubama? According to the International Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES), transliteration or Romanization of that vowel makes it properly “U“, or you could pronounce it Ü or you could pronounce it Ö, but it doesn’t have to be O. In any case, he was doing fine until he felt he needed to out-left Hillary and denigrate the actions of the troops. Hillary correctly called him out as naive.

I’d be much more willing to engage you in debate if you didn’t insist, by your very tone and language, by insulting anybody who may think anything different than you do.

Not that we take marching orders but that for them, they only have to wait us out until we give up and go home. That’s their own talking point. That’s the lesson they learned from us time and time again. So when they see us bickering, yeah, they’re thinking deja vu.

If the politicians must bicker, then do it behind closed doors, come to a consensus and present a united front. All the same, just because there’s a united front, doesn’t mean that one or the other has rolled over, just that the enemy is not going to be allowed to exploit any divisions. Hmmm, what were the saying? … at the water’s edge? United we…? Loose lips..?

Oh well, the well of political consensus has been thoroughly poisoned by the nutroots, just look at Lieberman and any bluedog that refuses to tow the moveon line..

As for 200 troops dead? Wasn’t the discussion at the onset of this war in Iraq that we’d likely see 10s of thousands dead, hence the Pentagon went and stock-piled a couple hundred thousand body bags? Nevertheless, Congress had a near unanimous decision to go take down Saddam regardless of the high causality estimates.

As for ridiculous, I don’t make these things up. The moving-on moonbats dwell on these type fantasies 24/7 all over the web. Mr. Babbling Streisand greets people with “Happy 9/11!!” and “it’s a day to celebrate”. Or Kos and his remark about screwing the 4 dead contractors.

Would you like more examples of nutroot wet dreams?

How about Gollum traipsing over to Syria last week and telling the Syrians that we are so-o-o wrong — translation to the Syrians: “We are infidels and as Dhimmis, we beg your tender Sharia mercies”. Perchance, he came to pay tribute in exchange for Syrian assistance in becoming POTUS. In return, he’ll do what for them? Arrange for Syria to leverage their extensive Lebanon experience by sending subject matter experts to guide his proposed Department of Peace?

As for General Ubama, he sure talks a tough game of shifting all our resources to Afghanistan, or going in and showing the Pakis how to take out OBL in their own backyard. I’m just curious as to what Generals he’s been consulting with, or did he just pull that notion out of thin air cause it sounded so-o-o Rambo? Particularly since just weeks earlier he accused troops of terrorizing innocents as SOP, or was he just channeling LT sKerry?

The dems aim to have their cake and eat it: to take the anti-war’s money & votes and still defend democracy. Lucky for them, it was a GOP POTUS that got hit with 9/11, so they used the opportunity to stick it to both OBL & the GOP. They succeeded in pinning “No WMD” on Bush, when all along both left & right believed with all of their hearts that So-damn Insane had some and wanted more.

If they really wanted to end the war, they would have done what Murtha suggested and held back the money. Knowing that strategy would hurt them in the long run — can you say “single-party” govt? — we’ve got the a game of Pin-the-Ass. Where we are treated to no end of posturing and gamemanship where the objective is NOT to end the war, but to make sure that the other guy gets pinned with the donkey’s tail whenever something goes wrong.

This week, the tail is stuck on the donks, but who knows how long that’ll last?

In any case, it is the dems who are primarily playing this dangerous game and you can bet that every night they go to bed hoping that it doesn’t bite them in the a**.

Their wet dream would be that AQ could kill 200 US soldiers in one day, pinning the tail back on the GOP & even cause us to stampede out of Iraq.

Their nightmare would be that AQ could capture 200 of our kids, wherewith to defile their bodies and desecrate their corpses. We might keep our collective heads cool in that scenario, but what if they got 3,000 teachers and kids? When that happens, so help me God! We’ll see all the US Muslims rounded up for their safety and the dems would be permanently tarred & feathered.

What!?! Don’t tell me that Usama would seek out a fatwa permitting him to kill 2 million American women and children for naught. By going into Iraq, we threw him off his master plan, but that coup de grace is one that he’s dying to attain.

Back to Bush.

One can quibble about the strategy; 1) strike AQ in their nest, kill them all, call it a day’s work and go home until either Saddam strikes or better yet, Iraq & Iran go at it and in the process wipe each other out, OR 2) go for the double-whammy course that Rummy took to defeat AQ & neutralize/democratize Iraq.

In hindsight, the best laid plans went awry in that Saddam had no discoverable “WMD”, our intel wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be and the Republican Guards weren’t so tough, such that there was no one in any official capacity to sign a declaration of unconditional surrender. As for the rest of the story, we see it continue to play out. So what?

Classic example of SNAFU; how many times has the house conducted hearings? You’d think the technicians could set up microphones with their eyes closed, yet we witnessed a 15 min delay at the start of Monday’s hearings. Sometimes stuff happens unexpectedly. Anyhoo.

Had we stuck to fighting solely in Afghanistan, as demanded by General Ubama, rather than it being another “Vietnam”, it would likely have been another “Afghanistan” — a la USSR. The jihadii would have poured across the borders and fought us tooth and nail up, down & thru the mountaintops, valleys and caves. If losing 3000 on the plains of Mesopotamia is bad, wait to you see the US body count in death valley.

Logistically, commandeering the Iraqi infrastructure and facilities, that Saddam so thotfully laid in place for us, is on an order of magnitude easier than trying to project a force of 160K in Afghanistan. I seriously doubt we could sustain a force of 75K, even if we wanted to, and maintain a comparable level of safety & security for the troops as in Iraq.

Ironic that most of the Generals critical of the “Bush” plan are also the same ones that thot it more important that the soldiers be outfitted with berets and other sharp looking swag. They also considered and rejected up-armored vehicles as overkill, even as our soldiers were dying left and right in unarmored tactical vehicles from Bosnian land mines (the original IEDs). To Wesley Clark’s credit, he fought and lost to get more up-armored vehicles. Remember the 3 soldiers that Jesse Jackson “rescued”? The only reason they weren’t killed in action was because they were in a XM1114.

Heck, those Generals were even on the cusp of a multi billion dollar program in 2002 to order 100s of the brand new Crusaders (self-propelled over-the-horizon artillery best suited for fighting the Warsaw Pact) until Rummy cancelled it. That sure bruised a bunch of the proponents’ feelings. In retrospect, I can just see the MSM headlines: “Iraqi Marketplace blown up by a Crusader — Hundreds of Innocents dead”. But I digress.

Bottomline, honorable Generals can disagree on the best way to fight with what they have at hand. And most soldiers understand that what is at stake is worth more than 3700 lives + and so they fight willingly & honorably. But the politicos can’t resist Monday morning quarterbacking, especially if it’ll gain them votes in the next election. And the simple facts dictate that even Gollum, er Kucinich would stay in Iraq thru-out his 1st term if he were POTUS in 2009.

Remember Clinton’s famous exit strategy going into Bosnia back in ‘93? “We will be out by the end of the year!” Little did we know that we’d exit, not on our terms, but in order to marshal up and fight AQ in 2002. Even so, we still have a token presence in the Balkans 15 years later.

What disgusts me is that the bickering politics are out front & center for the world to see, which only gives AQ hope, and serves to discourage the “weak” (freedom loving Iraqis), not to mention the rest of the moderate Muslim street from taking a stand.

All I care about is that one way or another, we achieve success in democratizing & stabilizing Iraq, however long it takes as a counterweight to the jihadii. They started it, and yes, we’ve made mistakes going as far back as the 1950s & earlier — see Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative — but gosh darn it, we’re finishing it.