It takes so few people to "terrorize" a place. Remember what those two homeless snipers did to the Washington D.C. area. I'm sure that a few restaurants even failed, because the people were just too frightened to leave their home for that period when the snipers were running around.

The "insurgents" in Iraq, many foreign born, are plenty evil, but they're not dumb. The ones that plan and build the bombs are quite clever--they learn and adjust. The ones who carry the bombs are exceptionally dumb.

I think "The Plan" is to reduce the terrorist population, and increase the Iraqi security population until it reaches some environmental balance--enough nice foxes to control all the evil rodents. Just like sweet old Mother Nature does.

Yeah, the cowboy act is just the tonic for Iraq at this stage. Remember our fearless leader's war cry: "Bring it on!" Funny how the insurgency obliged him, and continues to do so even in their "last throes."

"Giddyup, America!"

Funny how "giddy" is a component of "giddyup," because Ernst, like a lot of those on the Left, I've noticed, seem almost giddy when they write about how they believe America is losing Iraq. Of course, they're just exercising their patiotic duty to dissent, or some nonsense like that. Seriously, Ernst, re-read your comment, and then be sure to defend yourself that you're not, actually, rooting for the insurgency. I'm curious to see how you spin yourself, because dizzy people amuse me.

W and all of us for that matter need to control our short attention spans and “stay the course” for our own survival and that of our children.
Patients.

okfine

Ryan re Ernst: bingo.

The terrorist are not dumb. They have the net and read about how the democrats want to cut and run.
They have read about Nam. So if the rats would back America and the war this might end a lot sooner.

When you live in an apartment with cockroaches, you can kill cockroaches all day long and never reduce the problem. Cockroaches will reinvade until all they are killed in all the apartments at the same time.

It's time to tent the building.

Ryan: I find no pleasure in the cynicism I feel regarding Iraq and the macho malapropist who pushed us into it, but when a leader with no combat experience has the temerity to taunt our enemy and then an insurgency rises up to bedevil his naively conceived enterprise to this very day, there's an irony there I wish I could enjoy.

Dissent is nonsense?

Ah, of course, I mistook cynicism for giddiness. Of the ways I surmised you'd wiggle out from that rock you dropped on yourself, that explanation was at number three, I believe.

The insurgency was already well-entrenched before Bush said "bring em on," so that's a pretty hollow claim as well.

And, no, dissent is not nonsense. However, your particular brand of "Giddyup, America," dissent, is.

So then Ryan, if I understand your logic, you mean al-Qaida was already entrenched in Iraq before America attacked? But hasn't the Left already rejected that premise? Or is this another example of Mitch's Rule (paraphrased roughly as): The Left cannot hold two or more contratictory reasons for opposing Iraq at the same time?

Hey Gideon, once more, from the top:

We are not at war with al Queda. We are at war with Islamofascist terrorism, of which al Queda is one of the more visual components. If you agree with that premise, which for some reason a lot of folks on the left can't seem to, we can then make the segue to Iraq.

Iraq, although it may not have had an al Queda headquarters serving falafels from a rear drive up window, the country did support and encourage terrorism in the following ways:

- Compensatory payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

- Harboring known terrorists, including: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/achille.html

- Ever heard of Salman Pak? A reminder then: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

- An aggressive propaganda campaign geared toward glorifying and encouraging terrorist activities. You have anything to back that up, Ryan? Well, just off the top of my head: http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/noconnection.jpg

But, I suppose none of that means anything to you, Gideon, because it doesn't involve Saddam shaking hands with bin Laden.

Soooo, our soldiers are at war with terrorism, against terrorists streaming into a country that ISN'T the U.S., and those terrorists are conveniently getting mowed down by U.S., coalition, and continually-improving Iraqi forces. And, hey, we're working to establish a Democratic Islamic nation right smack dab in the Middle East to boot. Gosh, I'm almost tempted to say that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. is conducting the War on Terror quite successfully.

Ryan: Your post-assertion that you had surmised my explanation and a buck-fifty get you non-Starbucks coffee. Place your bets earlier next time.

It was little over a month after major combat operations had been declared over that our soldiers began dying with increasing frequency at the hands of these stateless murderers. American casualties post-Saddam numbered around fifty. Our president's callow response to these new attacks? "Bring 'em on." Two years later, they've now murdered over 1,700 of our men and women.

I agree with Mitch; America loves macho myopia! Bring on the cowboy.

Oh, for crying out loud, Ernst. Foreign fighters, a.k.a. non-Iraqis, were engaging U.S. troops during the earliest days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Try rewriting the history books on sites that have shorter memories, like Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org.

"Two years later, they've now murdered over 1,700 of our men and women."

You ever stop and wonder where those murderers might have been if they hadn't engaged our troops in Iraq? Manhattan, perhaps?

Ryan: You're tangling yourself in a technicality. This history is fact: The president pronounces on May 1, 2003 the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Despite this, our men and women continue to die. Bush's response, essentially: "More. We can handle it." Two years later, dozens die every day. Bush "misunderestimated" the danger of the post-Saddam occupation, regardless of where these stateless enemies originated.

I've heard the roach motel theory of Iraq before. "If we're engaging the enemy there, they can't attack us here." That may assuage your islamofascist paranoia, but I consider it wishful thinking. After all, the guy who masterminded 9/11 is still on the loose, and he's not in Iraq.

Oh, let's just dispense with all these crocodile tears over American casualties in Iraq, shall we? You don't give a damn about American casualities in Iraq, Ernst, anymore than you do about the dead citizens of New York. Your agenda here is to condemn the cowboy and undermine the troops and then rationalize your political animosities as "dissent." You have that luxury, to be sure, because every day young men and women are fighting and dying to ensure that you have that privilege -- but now here you are condemning the means by which they provide it.

Tell it to the Marines.

Blew away Kerry in the third debate???

Now you're just being silly.

Anywho...Eracus...

"You don't give a damn about American casualities in Iraq, Ernst, anymore than you do about the dead citizens of New York. Your agenda here is to condemn the cowboy and undermine the troops and then rationalize your political animosities as "dissent.""

You and your ilk been able to ride that dead horse rhetoric far too long. The rest of America is catching up with the minority of us that predicted this debacle in 2002.

Take some responsibility for a change and quit blaming us for your screw-ups.

You gutless wonders don't have the balls to question the administrations motives, actions or words because you're at least smart enough to understand the long-term consequences for your party if the whole story is finally told.

I know quite a few Republicans who are already suggesting the administration should prepare an exit strategy from the White House in 2006.

Lastly, you say, "You have that luxury, to be sure, because every day young men and women are fighting and dying to ensure that you have that privilege -- but now here you are condemning the means by which they provide it."

Another dead horse.

Every day young men and women are fighting and dying to ensure the administration can enforce Executive Order 13303 and guarantee long term profitability for war profiteers.

Sorry if the truth is too much for you.

Wow, Dan. Still lost on Yasgur's farm, eh?

"You're tangling yourself in a technicality."

Oh, now it's just a technicality. Whereas previously, old Ernst thought it was somehow important. Curious how, when someone clearly is losing an argument, it becomes a "technicality." Oh, look, that means it must be time to change the debate. Which Ernst does! Gold star for the pretentiously-named Ernst Stavro Blofeld!

"That may assuage your islamofascist paranoia"

Yeah, all that unsubstantiated "islamofascist paranoia." Embassy bombings? Paranoia, says Ernst. U.S.S. Cole? Nothing but paranoia. First bombing of the WWC? Oh, just paranoia. 9/11? Pure, unsubstantiated paranoia. Nothing to see here. What hermetically sealed vault do you live in, Ernst, that allows you to extricate yourself so entirely from reality? Sounds like a neat place, really. Cramped, but nice.

"After all, the guy who masterminded 9/11 is still on the loose, and he's not in Iraq."

You know what? The guy who masterminded the near-complete takeover of Europe during WWII wasn't located at Normandy, either. But, never mind that.

Just curious here, Ernst, but let's say, tomorrow, a White House press conference is held where Bush presents Osama to the press corps, hog tied, with a big pink bow, and an apple crammed in his mouth? How quickly will you and yours backpeddle and move those goalposts then? "Oh, Osama doesn't matter!" I can practically hear the chorus now.

Plus, the media would report on the human rights abuses the U.S. bestowed upon bin Laden, what with the unnecessary hog tying, the superfluous pink bow, and the inhumane apple in the mouth.

And I wonder why no one here has addressed any of the points I made in my response to Gideon awhile back. Too link-rich and full of uncomfortable realities, perhaps?

Ryan Ryan ryan...

The reason nobody has responded is because even with you really neat links, Iraq wasn't a threat to this country.

Can you grasp that concept Ryan?

You're like the desperate losers at Hannity.com that keep pointing out a few 10 year old sarin filled shells as proof that he did have WMD's.

Besides Ryan, if the reason we went to war was Hussein was aiding terrorists, why havent we invaded Saudi Arabia yet?

Oh, I imagine we'll get to Saudi Arabia in time, Dan. At which point, I'll be sure to go through Mitch's archives, find this comment string, and shove it back in your face as evidence that you supported going after Saudi Arabia.

"The reason nobody has responded is because even with you really neat links, Iraq wasn't a threat to this country."

Hey, officially, Afghanistan wasn't TECHNICALLY a threat to us, either. Shouldn't have gone after them, either, eh Dan?

I'm glad you liked my neat links. Perhaps some time, you'll even deign to look at them.

Ryan: I give you points for your chutzpah in calling the argument in your favor without debunking my fact-based account of Bush's fatuous remarks from May 2003, macho posturing that is now laden with a sad irony two years later. Your riposte, "Nuh-UH! Non-Iraqi fighters were there BEFORE!" is as explosive as, "You forgot Poland!"

For your Bush-like self-congratulation and self-satisfaction, Ryan, you are hereby awarded: http://tinyurl.com/9rncd

I reiterate my point: The cowboy act is the wrong move for Bush right now.

Ryan, I looked at your links. All of them.

You'll have to do a little better than a cheesy mural of Hussein and the burning towers to make your point.

Tonight, I'm going to take a couple of hours to paint a picture of George Bush standing next to those towers to prove once and for all that he knew about the attacks before they happened.

While I'm at it, I'll prove to you that dogs can play poker.