Or the Iraqi people.

 2/3 of Americans

It seems to me that you're taking his comment out of context. You've offered only one way of interpreting his comment and you've presented it as definitive proof of your initial impression of him.  He could have simply meant that it's too late to turn back time. 

The missing context is:  we've lost four thousand Americans, trillions of American dollars, our standing on the global stage and we're no closer to winning than we were on day one.  So?

 Though I was not in favor of the invasion in the first place;pulling out now would be the same as saying " We leave you to kill each other in peace."  That is not exactly showing concern for the Iraqi people.

The missing context is: we've lost four thousand Americans, trillions of American dollars, our standing on the global stage and we're no closer to winning than we were on day one. So?

My thoughts exactly: "So?"

Those troops are not coming home, no matter who wins in November. Those who complain about "no war for oil," are the ones who bitch the loudest when gas prices go up, because most Americans - liberals, conservatives, or the majority who are somewhere in between - don't drive hybrids or little 50mpg roller skate cars. The Vietnam War was fought over oil, this war is being fought over oil, and dozens of future wars will be fought over oil.

Any president who thinks about withdrawing those troops need only look back at what happened to JFK when he planned a complete American withdrawal from Vietnam.

My thoughts exactly, johnburnssucks.

The missing context is:  we've lost four thousand Americans, trillions of American dollars, our standing on the global stage and we're no closer to winning than we were on day one.  So?

You guys on the left would say we're losing even if nobody else got killed, they developed a democracy that put all others to shame, and all dead troops were raised from the dead, and everybody lived happily ever after. 

 BLT are you turning into a cynic?

No Doc, the complete context was something about Abe Lincoln maybe having second thoughts about the civil war half way through it too, had he been swayed by polls. In actuality, that makes our case because at least Abe would have"thought' about it, and you would agree that the outcome of the American Civil war was probably better than what the outcome of this one will be. Cheney is too arrogant to think he is ever wrong. He probably blames his fellow hunters for getting in the way of his line of fire.

 Me, a cynic?  I'm only cynical as it pertains to the prognosis of the most cynical among us :)

Otherwise, I say:

Let's End the War (by WINNING IT!)

words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008

http://www.drblt.net/music/...

Cheney arrogant?  Cheney is one of the most humble men I've ever never met. 

No, those four thousand will never come back.  But neither will those murdered by common street thugs.  So it's important to arrest, try and convict those who sent them to war in the first place.

.

A lone nut killed JFK.  Are you saying Oswald would've laid off if Kennedy hadn't been getting wise about Vietnam?  How much better off we'd be if he'd done two full terms...or if Shrub had done one, in Vietnam.

You guys on the left would say we're losing even if nobody else got killed, they developed a democracy that put all others to shame, and all dead troops were raised from the dead, and everybody lived happily ever after. 

Try us, BLT.  Throw in a cure for acne while you're at it.

The plain truth is that none of those things will happen.  Least of all the raised-from-the-dead part.  If you're expecting any of that as an outcome from this occupation you're mistaken.

No Doc, the complete context was something about Abe Lincoln maybe having second thoughts about the civil war half way through it too, had he been swayed by polls.

In February of 1865, Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens met with Lincoln at Hampton Roads, Va. in an attempt to end the war and allow the South to hang on to some of the same traditions it had started the war with. Lincoln later told an aide that had Stephens come to him with that same offer only a year earlier - 1864, an election year - he might have been interested in working something out. But since it was 1865 and the South was virtually finished, Lincoln essentially told Stephens to stuff it.

Shrub might seriously consider bringing such an offer to the Iraqi government, then?  We're virtually finished...

.

Remember that stuff they said about oil revenues paying for the cost of the war?  They were right.  Just not *OUR SIDE* of the war.

 After 5 years, the Iraqi army SHOULD be special forces by now.......to be a MARINE,one goes thru 3 months of basic--plus MOS training anywhere from 6 to 12 months---then you are good to go to anywhere in the world...at a drop of the hat.....

Come on now--after 5 years and still can not defend themselves.....oh, I forgot--this is a civil war,isn't it.....lets name the last 2 civil wars---Korea....Viet Nam....

If we are going to win this war...pull out and drop " The Special "....then we can call it Miller Time---but that would Contaminate the OIL--- the big DICK ( not to confuse with 'tricky dick') Chaney wouldn't like that.....not profits in doing that....what would become of KBR then.....

I'm sure that another war is just around the corner...so don't sell your stocks just yet

The problem is we're training the other side, Ling.  Arming them, too.

A lone nut killed JFK.  Are you saying Oswald would've laid off if Kennedy hadn't been getting wise about Vietnam?  How much better off we'd be if he'd done two full terms...or if Shrub had done one, in Vietnam.

Neither of the two shots fired by Oswald hit Kennedy. There were three gunmen in total: Oswald, the gunman on the grassy knoll, and a third gunman to Kennedy's left rear. One standard military sniper formation for a three-man team is shaped like a "Y."

Oswald's first shot misses everyone and hits the curb. Kennedy hears it, and begins looking around. The gunman on the knoll fires and hits Kennedy in the throat. Gunman #3 misses Kennedy and hits Governor Connally. Oswald fires and hits Connally. The gunman on the knoll and gunman #3 adjust their aim, and BAM! The knoll gunman's shot hits Kennedy under the right eye and blows the back of his head onto the trunk of the Lincoln, while gunman #3's shot hits Kennedy in the left rear of his head and causes the massive exit would clearly visible in the Zapruder film. Jackie, freaking out, goes after the back of her husband's head and is made to go back in the car by a Secret Service agent standing on the bumper. The reason that Kennedy's autopsy photos do not show the wounds that I have just described is because part of Kennedy's hair was photographed and then matted in to make it look like there was no exit wound in the back of his head, even though a doctor testified that he could see JFK's cerebellum clearly through the fist-sized hole in the back of his head.

Ah, I begin to see how you fell for the "WMD in Iraq" fairy tale. 

 And Thank You Afghanistan for reporting a BUMPER crop of opium poppies....the junkies here are very glad to hear this....you know the ones---the ones that fire on our law enforcement for doing their jobs......

And Thank You President Bush for selling Saudi Arabia 30 Million of OUR military hardware,and they won't " open the valves " on their pipelines to ease the crunch on oil prices-----

Bush kissed the wrong rear on that one......one day our sons and daughters will have to defend themselves from OUR own weapons......

one day our sons and daughters will have to defend themselves from OUR own weapons

It's happening already.

The Iraq Awakening Sunni group the U.S. trained and supplied with weapons has splintered and a faction in Anbar are attacking U.S. troops.

He didn't have a choice.  He works for the Saudis, remember?  And through them, for bin Laden.  Those weren't Iraqis on the 9/11 planes.

 So how long do we have to let OUR President throw OUR monies into this sewer...not to mention OUR blood......

Hey " DICK "...... how much is enough..... the 'Thousands points of light' and "a kinder and gentler nation" theory doesn't work....

Whops...my bad.....the big BUSH left something for the LITTLE BUSH to finish....this war could have been done AND over with the first time around.....another neat way to test new and exciting technology on the war front....

Look at the place---Tijuana looks better than that...and the Mexican government are at war with the dope dealers for the border cities on that one.....

And THEY are at OUR back door........sorry guys,I'm dropping to one knee and asking for any help and guidance on this one.....WHATS LEFT????

 Years ago,I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.....it's easy to be 15,000 ft. and drop your load....but it's another story when those bombs hit and meat starts flying and the screams for mommy and daddy or sarge or whomever fills the air.....this nonsense MUST be won within a year or get the hell out,cause we weren't invited in the first place....hell, none of them EVER heard of the word 'Democracy' until we went in there....and THEY weren't flying the PLANES that hit the towers.....Intelligence Agency my butt...they couldn't find it with both hands

It's amazing to me that the supposedly-anti-guvmint party, that wants people to take responsibilities for themselves, and not live on the dole, and not ask for handouts and not live on welfare...it's amazing to me that is exactly what we've done for the past five years in Iraq and we apparently are being asked to do so indefinitely. When they stand up, we'll stand down. Well, to turn the GOP line on its head, you don't expect them to stand up as long as you're helping them, do you?

Forget Iraq; Bear Stearns is a classic government handout.  And the amount of money wasted would have saved thousands of thousands of American houses from foreclosure.  We might even have turned a profit.

Ah, I begin to see how you fell for the "WMD in Iraq" fairy tale.  

The liberal talking points that you have thumbtacked to the wall won't work this time. I never believed the WMDs in Iraq story; show me a post where I said I did. You can't and you know it, but being the little sawed-off runt that you are, your insecurity won't let you admit it. I guessed early on that Bush was continuing the war his father started, and I was right.

What are you, some cripple who sits at home all day posting, and who thinks he is right about everything yet conveniently changes the subject when proven wrong? You sound like timec. Are you her father? It wouldn't surprise me, considering your taste in women.

JBS, I will let you stew in your hatred a while.    Your personal remarks would shame you if you knew the actual situation--which you don't.

Lots of folks claimed they never believed the WMD fables.  If you *TRULY* saw through it and opposed the war as merely Shrub's attempt to show up his father, kudos to you.    There was never any other valid justification for going to war with Iraq.  The likelihood that Shrub knew there weren't any WMD's to be found and went ahead anyway is justification for trial, conviction and execution.

Hatred? I was shaking my head and chuckling when I typed that.

Nothing shames me. I found having a conscience to be a liability many years ago.

The likelihood that Shrub knew there weren't any WMD's to be found and went ahead anyway is justification for trial, conviction and execution.

By who? Should LBJ have been executed for escalating the war in Vietnam, which was nothing more than 58.000 Americans dying for the chance to allow the U.S. to control the oil production is Southeast Asia?

You were chuckling when you speculated whether I was a "cripple?"  Your sense of humor escapes me, I'm afraid.   No, it's my spouse who's in the wheelchair.  Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.    Bet you *KILL* at the old folks' home.  Metaphorically speaking, of course.

.

Should LBJ have been executed for getting 58,000 soldiers killed?  Quite possibly--though he wasn't the one who started the whole thing, he certainly escalated it beyond all belief and knew the Gulf of Tonkin bit was a hoax.    Bit late now, though.  Same with Nixon, of course, and his secret plans to bomb Cambodia.

By who?  Poetic justice would be the same judge, in the same courtroom and the same gallows as that which was sufficient for Saddam Hussein.  Of course, there's no justice in this world.

 i, more than anyone, would LOVE the soldiers to come home, but it's totally unrealistic.  we will ALWAYS have troops stationed there, when we leave from there, we'll just go somewhere else. whoever goes into office knows they can't just pull everyone out at once, who knows what will happen. why dwell on it? bitching about it does no good. one thing about being a military wife, you learn to GET OVER IT!

By who?  Poetic justice would be the same judge, in the same courtroom and the same gallows as that which was sufficient for Saddam Hussein.

By 'who", I meant what governing body? The Iraqis have no authority over Bush, and they couldn't get near him if they did. The House approved the war 296-133, and the Senate did so by 77-23. So those who call it an "illegal war" need to check their facts. Bush's story about Saddam seeking significant amounts of uranium from Africa wasn't true, but you'll notice that the formerly-hallowed Nancy Pelosi hasn't done anything to try and punish him. It would be fruitless and would cost the Dems seats in the fall elections.

If you want to read about how corrupt LBJ was, read "Lone Star Rising," which is a book that came out in 1991 about LBJ's early political career. His chief Democratic rival, Coke Stevenson, was no less saintly (it was said that his supporters liked him so much, they would vote for him three or four times in one election), and their 1948 Senate runoff is one of those stories that would be regarded as nothing less than a bad work of fiction were it not true.

 It's unrealistic to think that the war can be won by staying longer, surging troops, or by longer rotations. It would also be nice if there was a clear definition of what "winning" is. Going somewhere else is fine if it's supported by the populace, or at the very least makes sense. Heck ,I wouldn't be surprised if efforts were concentrated towards  Afghanistan after the "Bring the Troops Home" campaign starts in Iraq (which none of the Dems are stating outright but imply).

It is interesting that the Iraqi occupation is still referred to as a "war.'

The war part was basically over in shocking and awesome fashion in a relative handful of days.

It then became and is now an occupation.

It is even more remarkable that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, etal, had to have known the long term implications and cost of invasion and occupation but waged war anyway on highly questionable intelligence.

Of course they knew the cost all along in both lives and resources.

There are no excuses that can absolve or mitigate the Iraq travesty.

There is nothing that can justify the debacle.

"We didn't expect this turn of events" or "we made some mistakes" defense doesn't cut it.

The Iraq part of the war on terror was the result of the predetermined mindset of the authors of new U.S. preemptive strike defense policy who were stubbornly unshakable in their flawed belief that diplomacy and sanctions be damned.

Five years later after bankrupting the country they are still in power with the same mindset. 

America (and the world) needs to be assured that they are gone in November. All of them, and all those who knowingly aided and abetted the tragically costly escalation of the Afghanistan effort to chase down AlQuaida and Bin Ladin to war and invasion of Iraq.

The Cheney/Wolfowitz defense policy must be scrapped and supplanted with a sensible approach to national security that does not include wanton abuses of power.

If McCain or Hillary support the present underlying defense policy, they too should be sent packing by voters.

Unfortunately for conservatives, that leaves only Obama, like it or not, the only one among them who at least had the good sense to know that the war was a bad deal for America.

If the man can restore some of America's lost resources, dignity and integrity, It shouldn't matter whose church he prayed in or what his minister said.

We need a better deal, not more shenanigans, buffoonery, and corruption.

We need it now before its too late.

We can't wait around for die hard Republicans to wake up and smell the coffee.

That's the real message reflected by the 70 percent of Americans who want change.

 So who's surprised?  Cheney was cloned from Bob Halderman's left buttock.

 LOL. It's the conservative RIGHT buttock Audrey. Get it right. LOL