"At least we can rest knowing the war will end soon and Rumsfeld's lack of vision is not going to kill anyone else."

What?

Rummy's lack of vision did not provide enough troops, enough equipment, enough training, "you go to war with the army you have" and on and on and on. Rummy did more damage to this war than any IED.

Only because Dubya let him; in fact, insisted on it, right up to the end.

Brad #2

"Rummy's lack of vision did not provide enough troops,..."

How does this lead to "the war will end soon..."?

Two thoughts. One: the war will end soon. Two: Rummy cannot kill anyone else. Put together because they are the two reasons "At least we can rest knowing." Basic grammar.
Here is the full sentence: "At least we can rest knowing the war will end soon and Rumsfeld's lack of vision is not going to kill anyone else."

brad #5

I do understand the sentence grammatically. What I question is the conclusion that 'the war will end soon'. Just because grammar is proper does not mean the conclusions are correct.

"knowing the war will end soon"

You are dreaming I think. Look how many Presidents were involved in Vietnam and none got us out soon enough.
The Dems won't have a plan any more than the Reps do, and I feel slightly sorry for ol Rummy in that this war is not "winnable" and there is no end in sight.
The only way to win is not to play.
It's too late for that, so I don't know what's next and neither do the dems, the President nor Brad.

Les,
The occupation will end soon because the Congress is now controlled by those who want it ended soon.

brad #8

Thanks for stating it explicitly. I agree with Martin in #7.

Bush kept on saying that the Dems had no plan for Iraq. The truth is that they do have a 'plan' but it is not fundamentally different from what the Repubs are actually doing, but they claim to be able to do it better.

" The only way to win is not to play."

So maybe we should just stop playing. Take our ball and go home. The score isn't getting any better with us there.

Martin writes in #7:

You are dreaming I think. Look how many Presidents were involved in Vietnam and none got us out soon enough.

Yep. And they were about evenly split between the two parties, too.

Les #9:

Bush kept on saying that the Dems had no plan for Iraq. The truth is that they do have a 'plan' but it is not fundamentally different from what the Repubs are actually doing, but they claim to be able to do it better.

Also true.

We could end it quickly, but it's highly unlikely.

Eventually we will withdraw from Iraq. But the threat of radical islamic terrorism to the United States, Israel and if recent events in Europe are any indication, the rest of the western world will still exist.


It will be up to both parties to publicly recognize this threat and formulate a tough no nonsense plan to meet it in a concerted attempt to prevent any further attacks on American citizens or interests. Those who insist that the threat is not real must not be given any credence as they spout there "it's our fault anyway rhetoric."

The European nations must recognize the threat and make a real attempt to deal with it.

Lastly, the Muslims in the mideast who themselves are unhappy with their own leaders who wish new more westernized leadership for themselves so that they may peacefully coexist with the westernized world will need to step up to the plate and say enough is enough and take back not only their nations but their faith which has been hijacked by a group of violent radicals who seek to use it as a justification to harm all those who do not share their worldveiw.

I am a big fan of Winston Churchill as he is one of the greatest leaders of all time in my estimation. there is a quote from him from world war 2 that I think is quite appropriate for our time.......



"If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age"

Obviously Churchill was speaking about Hitler but the same can be said now of the radical islamic terrorists. If we fail to stand up to them will the world not sink into a dark abyss?

It is clear that we must change course in Iraq. But we must also not leave their with our tail between our legs to come home and sulk. We must regroup and redouble our efforts in the war on terror.

"The truth is that they do have a 'plan' but it is not fundamentally different from what the Repubs are actually doing, but they claim to be able to do it better."

Actually, I think that several prominent democrats, as well as military men and others, do have alternate plans. The benefit that the Ds have at this point is that they can introduce a new plan without the ego attachment to the failed old plan. Too bad that personal ego plays such a prominent part in our policies, but that seems to be the way it is. just consider all the deadenders who doggedly continue to support the failed Bush plan.

Leaving Iraq with our tail between our legs is certainly not a viable option. But leaving Iraq with a defined purpose of doing other, more important things is perfectly acceptable. It's high time that we realize that whatever we do, Iraq is going to be a bloody mess and a tense spot for quite some time. We'd be better served focusing the resources of the world's only superpower in more crucial operations. Iraq is merely a pawn in one hell of a chess game.