Perhaps next time the voters shouldn't elect someone who lies his ass off to get the votes to go to war. The Dems have had a couple of months to come up with a plan, your beloved administration has had 4 years. Nice plan.

Can't we get out now, after all "Mission Accomplished" happened a long time ago.

The Amazing Randy, debunker of myths.

I thought things are going great in Bagdad? 

Why leave if that is the case.

So in August 2008 we will have won the war?? Thank you, amazing Kreskin..  Just what will the Dems be doing between now and then that ensures victory by 2008??

PS.  A majority of Democrats authorized the US to go to war..  Next time, If the Democrats really don't want to go to war, they best not give the Commander In Chief authorization to do such.

Yep. Republicans get us in this mess, but democrats don't have a plan. Liberals don't support the troops because they want them to come home. But Bush supports the troops by giving them a rat infested room while they recuperate from the IED blast. Maybe Walter Reed could use some volunteer doctors. Or maybe Bush just needs a good pathologist to diagnose where the cancers in his admin lie.  Know any good pathologists? Too late, it's metastasized.

You haven't heard the Dems plan? It's get them out by August of 2008. What's the Republican plan, leave them there for the next 20 years with zero progress? Nice plan.

Sorry Mark, but are you really insinuating that the people against the war in Iraq are the culprits for the rise in insurgents in Afghanistan?

 Maybe the fact that most of our troops are in Iraq instead of Afghanistan might be why there is a rise.

If there *IS* a draft instituted anytime soon, it's vitally important to document (and store the documentation in safe locations) what happens to the draft-age children of Important Political Figures.

.

Otherwise, you might (hypothetically) have a situation where a military deserter gets elected President because all the records have been shredded.  To cite a worst-case scenario.

Perhaps you missed the news today, but even the commander in charge of forces in Iraq says that there is no military solution to the situation, and that diplomatic avenues must be pursued. But I can understand how "negotiation" as a tactic in international relations would seem so foreign to you; after all, this is absolutely the first time anyone anywhere has ever suggested it has a way to deal with other countries and groups throughout the world.

You know what really "emboldens" our enemies? When the leader of a country bows down to their demands. You know, like pulling troops out of a country in response to a terrorist act. ("Mission Accomplished", anyone?) You know, like launching an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist act, opening up an additional front which would distract from the real fight against the terrorist group. You know, like allowing the leader of the terrorist group escape from your forces, then allowing that terrorist to stay free for another 5+ years. Terrorists don't have political agendas, and certainly not ones that they would publish on the internet. (BTW, saying that others "generalize Americans" in the paragraph after you've generalized all terrorists as Islamic, non-political, and from the Middle East wasn't ironic at all. That's just good, clean writing there.) .

The more you try to compare the "war on terror™" with WWII, it only serves to make your other arguments look foolish. If this was WWII, why haven't we instituted a draft? If this was WWII, why aren't the civilians asked to make sacrifices? If this was WWII, why are we now ignoring our "Hitler"? If this was WWII, why isn't the rest of the world supporting us? If this was WWII, what plans do we have in place to make sure the US doesn't get struck again? If this was WWII, why aren't we training and equipping our soldiers properly before sending them into theatre? If this was WWII, what plans do we have to provide a lasting peace to civilians after we're done fighting?

This "war" has been lost because of the ineptitude of the Administration, and a "rubber stamp" Congress for the past 6+ years. Now that the people of the country have figured that out and elected a Congress to provide a check and a balance to the out of control Executive Branch, you're blaming them? I can't tell if this is revisionism or just plain ignorance. I'm not sure which one would be worse.

I am so tired of responding to this same old whining BS.

I am just going to save time and borrow from TomW

There's a really simple solution to this. Everyone should get on board with the recommendations of the Iraq study group and the 9/11 commission. I'm tird of Bush making us look weak by not having a plan, not caring for the troops, and not telling the truth. It's time he and his supporters got on board with the rest of America so we stop looking weak. Every time he says he'll do something and then contradicts himself, every time he acts like a cowboy, every time he lies he damages our chances of winning.

The war started on his watch and it may end on his watch. He should step aside and let someone who cares handle it.

And as such, a font of Right-justified activity.

.

But seriously, I've heard this "embolden the enemy" crap time and again.  What "emboldened the enemy" was when Shrub did *EVERYTHING* bin Laden wanted after IX/XI.

I personally don't want to embolden our enemies.  I want to italicize them, possibly convert them to a nice underline font.

.

Anyone who feels that diplomatic efforts aren't vital in the "war on terra" hates our troops, is planning on a cut and run strategy and probably leaves the seat up, too.

.

I have not lost focus on the war.  Our actions in Iraq (and lack of completion in Afghanistan) have made things ten times worse for the United States than on September 10, 2001.