Liberalism, 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq:

Ummm . . . we are winning in Iraq, despite the best efforts of the reality-impaired to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

^Winning what, exactly?

"Hey, they aren't killing as many of our guys as they were last week"?

Depends on the week, doesn't it?

"Hey, we've got this terrific exit strategy, only nobody knows what it is"?

Not buying the first half of that one.

"We're winning their hearts and minds"?

Now, where have I heard that before?

Get back to me in five years when nothing's changed and explain how "we're winning," mmkay?

BDS. It is a terrible disease that is crippling our country. Someone needs to set up a fund, or a telethon or something. Together we can find a cure!

You know, there is this reporter called Micheal Yon who writes pretty detailed dispatches about what is really going on in Iraq.

Not only is he involved with the troops, but he has been shot at, has illegally picked up a weapon and shot back, pulled troops out of danger, and watched some pretty dear friends die.

So instead of listening to your vile BS about 'winning'....or what you see as a 'winning'.....I'm going to listen to the actual facts about what is happening over there, and draw my opinion from that.

I would suggest you do the same, but considering you suffer from BDS, I doubt that will ever happen.

You'll be asked which branch you served in,

in 3..... 2..........

Some sad news for granny and the rest of the "We're Losing!!!!" crowd:

And wouldn't it have been nice if all those folks hadn't ended up in Iraq on the basis of cooked intel?

Wouldn't it have been nice if Pearl Harbor hadn't been bombed? Wouldn't it have been nice if Buchanan had done something during the Secession Crisis? Wouldn't it have been nice if George III has actually heeded the Olive Branch Petition? Wouldn't it have been nice if Alexander the Great named an heir?

Water under the bridge.

Now you're just deflecting the issue...again.

We're there....and according to the people working over there, we're winning.

The "donor" states volunteer in every federal election for the role....why is it our responsibility to refuse the funds they insist on sending?

Because it's hypocritical to denounce big government then turn around and perpetuate its existence?

You're nothing if not predictable, Bear.

The issue seems to be that "winning" is "whatever the apologists say it is."

Certainly can't argue with anything as elusive as that...

But the red states are not perpetuating it...liberal policies << liberal politicians << liberal (blue) states.

The states who favor it perpetuate it for all of us...that they end up being "donors" is there problem since the while system was their idea.

You do realize it is no more productive - or realistic - for the one on the left to insist on "cooked intel" and "Bush lied" as actual facts than it is for someone on the right to insist "the weapons are still there somewhere"

One of the reasons I bowed out of this discussion is because both sides are certain the other one is deluding themselves while spewing delusions themselves.

It's a lose-lose game....98% of the folks can't seperate their ideaology from their ability to analyze known facts.

I think Micheal Yon is far from an apologist.

Obviously you don't like what he has to say.

I wasn't referring to Michael Yon.

So what's the stated purpose of the U.S. presence in Iraq currently? You guys still clinging to that "stabilizing the Middle East" one, or has that changed too?

And how long do you figure the U.S. will have troops on Iraqi soil? Ready to trot out the "we still have troops in Germany and Japan" argument?

Purpose to being there now? Because pulling out would only make things worse?

So things are going so well that we don't dare leave?

Huh?

The US is responsible to make sure things go right.

Unlike the pussies who pulled out of Vietnam and got 2 million innocent civilians killed, it actually looks like the Bush government has enough balls to see the problem through.

And they just "went wrong" for no reason?

Keep spinning.

Keep ducking.

You guys always have all the answers when you're among your own kind.

Remind me again how there was absolutely no ulterior motive in the 'how many soldiers died this week' threads? LOL.

No, you keep spinning the discussion away from my original point.

We were talking about 'winning'....and I said according to the people actually there, and used Micheal Yon as an example, not only is the US winning, but they've made great progress since the surge.

Somehow you can't comprehend that, so you spin the topic away from it.

I comprehend it. I'm certain Michael Yon and those around him believe it. But I can't help thinking of the visit McCain made a while back when he claimed it was safe to walk through the market in Baghdad - with a phalanx of security around him.

We keep hearing "things are getting better," which is vague enough. The question is, for whom? The average Iraqi? The American taxpayer, who's funding this thing at how many billions now? The guys with boots on the ground? I mean, yeah, fewer of them are getting killed, sort of, depending on what week it is. Is that what you mean by "better"?

And, incrementally, how long do you figure that "better" has to keep improving before it's, you know, safe to leave? Five years, 10, 20, 50?

Oh, she can be reasonable at times.

I'll try to get back to this later. I read a news report the other day about certain political gains that were made in Iraq this past month that have really showcased the actually progress being made.

Now I just have to find it.

Well bow back in.

The right knows that Iraq had no WMD's. We figured it out a while ago. Saddam did a marvelous job of convincing us and the rest of the intelligence world out there that he had them.

We now know he didn't have them but was bluffing to keep Iran at bay. We now know he didn't have them but was hoping to restart his WMD programs when America got tired of being in the middle east and left him alone. We now know what little chemical and biological stuff he had went to Syria and if the rumors are true Russia.

Saddam wasn't expecting 9/11 nor was he expecting Bush to respond the way he did. Hell no one thought Bush would respond the way he did. Why? Because every President before him all the way to Carter turned and ran when the shit hit the fan. This time however much to Osama's surprise, Saddam's surprise, and the world's surprise Bush went in. Into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

So now it's only the loonies on the left who are insisting still the Bush lied and made everything up. It's only the left who continues to peddle the "cooked intel" and other stuff.

So feel free to come back and slap some libs around.

Thing is, the left knew it *before* the war. You guys were screaming "CAN'T TRUST THE U.N.!!!" so damn loud you couldn't hear anything else.