1 This is typical of the Liberal leftist... As an American and a veteran i am sick of these leftist treasonist bastards... www.jimgoism.blogspot.com

2 SOP for the left. Screw them. I'm not out to change their minds, and I don't give a damn what they believe. But I do care what my nextdoor neighbor believes and others like that - so that's who I and friends talk to - and this is what really pisses off the left!

3 The Zogby poll company is run by two Arabs, and is paid by a peacenik company to conduct the poll to show Iraq is lost. The truth as the active duty Marine put it, is not what the MSM wants to hear, or print. The MSM has treason in their hearts, and minds, and should be shot for it. Right after a fair trial.

4 Now, now...We all know they don't support the war, but they support the troops!

5 funniest article this month, without a doubt. The best part is how many people asked about "atrocities" and "burns by WP Chemical weapons" by contractors/soldiers. Don't you know your "Baby killer" soldiers, are just crazy emotionless killin` machines? I guess we can put a "tombstone" on this whole "we support the troops" nonsense, right about now.

6 Maxie's right, Liberal traitors should be rounded up and deported to North Korea.

7 Thanks for posting this Rusty. I e-mailed you the story since what I usually read on DUmmie Funnies is hysterical... This was simply tragic. More people must read that thread.

8 We saw the same shit coming from the parents of these functionless targets throughout the VietNam War. We didn't hang'em for treason then and now they've multiplied.

9 Wow!! That was a fascinating look into the natural habitat of the moonbats. That is one brave Marine!

10 Well I advocate shooting, but deporting would suffice.

11 DIRTY ROTTEN LIBERAL LEFTIST SCUM THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A ROTTEN TOMATO HIT THEM IN THEIR FACE

12 I certainly don't think people (of any political persuasion) should be quick to flaunt their prejudices... and I think any time someone who has actually been there can offer an unvarnished picture we should pay attention. Having said that, credibility is important. I don't know if the Marine's credibility, judgment, or information is out of whack, but early on he was asked about the readiness of Iraqi battalions. He said I'd say that about half of the Iraqi Battalions are ready to operate independently. That flat out contradicts formal testimony of senior military commanders. Here's what AP reported last week: In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2. Level 1 is defined as fully independent. Level 2 is defined as battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help. Level 3 is defined as battalions fighting alongside U.S. forces but not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions. If the Marine were more precise, then I would have more confidence in his reporting.

13 That Jara Sang person on DU is particularly vile. Lord, I hope it's not a teacher. ------------------------ background, he probably answered that question out of turn and offered an opinion he shouldn't have or he simply over-generalized. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about your confidence (or that of his vile detractors at DU) in his reporting any more than I do. Since you seem to have a problem with it, why don't you hop on over there and ask him how he can offer such an opinion? Or did you glaze over the part where he then admitted his "view over there was pretty mypoic[sic]" having only been in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar? All his replies sounded like simple honest answers from a guy just returned. He didn't flavor it with politics and was called names and accused of outright lying. I think he stayed pretty cool in spite of it. He didn't even gently chide a single person as I'm sure he could have. And you are a little too quick to dismiss him. At the risk of getting a little snarky myself, you're beginning to live up to your name. (Rusty: What the hell is a fruitcake error? I'll keep trying to submit until my comment appears.)

14 Sweetheart.... you will excuse me if I find it ironic that a woman with the handle "oyster" chooses to mock my nick (a sardonic reference to a Rose Garden statement). But to your point about the commentary attributed to a recently returned Marine... I *did* see his comment about the myopic view. That sounded credible. In fact, that is exactly what I would have expected from a grunt on the ground. I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he is legit or a plant, reading from a script, opining about matters he has no knowledge of, or simply regurgitating what he read in Stars and Stripes. That is why I limited my comment to what I did. I also spelled out the different definitions for levels of preparedness because it makes sense that he may have heard the 50% number and either confused Level 1 and 2, or simply not appreciated there were levels. Again, completely reasonable and in no way qualifying him as a liar, shill, or plant. In other words, I'm not questioning his integrity, just whether he is a reliable reporter for anything beyond what he actually personally witnessed. As near as I figure, the site you guys are talking about is a parody of some other blogosphere... and I confess I have no idea where DU is... which surprised me because I know an awful lot of places. The problem I had following the red letter text was they clearly munged up the attributions and got carried away with extra commentary so you lose the thread of the narrative. I would have liked to see the interaction about the 85% comment... as you know Jason over at Gen Why had an awful lot to say about the Zogby poll. Unfortunately, when I asked him about the surprising finding that *more* of the troops polled believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 than even the folks from the WaPo poll a couple years back the best he could do was cite a Hewitt interview with Zogby. I find that polling result intriguing because, as you probably recall when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were asked if they believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they stood shoulder to shoulder in the same room at the same time in the same press conference and gave the same answer ... which was "No." That Zogby poll result is concerning to me because, if true, it means one of the following: Either 1) The majority of troops STILL believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 or 2) The majority of troops believe that retaliating against Iraq was a rational response to 9/11 or 3) Both Let me put some real numbers to this to demonstrate why that is a problem. About 2,986 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11. So far, about 2,310 Americans have been killed in Iraq since we invaded in March 2003. At the present mortality rate, we will pass the 2,986 number shortly before Christmas (somewhere between 12/14 and 12/21). That means that our Christmas gift to ourself this year is going to be the loss of MORE men and women in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. As you know, people don't die just for one or two news cycles. That's a gift that will keep on giving. No one who is sane questions the importance of protecting the US from international terrorists. What people like me have been saying since BEFORE we invaded is that pouring valuable resources into Iraq will NOT do that. If people are making that sacrifice under the mistaken notion that there is some relationship between the two, we have a serious problem. It means we are going to keep making that mistake for a looooong time.

15 I apologize for the snarky remark. What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury. At the rate Saddam was killing people, and if that trend had continued, the 2986 x 2 number you use may easily have been a drop in a bucket. The civilian count in Iraq, as well, doesn't come close nor can it even be compared to the genocidal manner in which they were killed by Saddam's regime. Some argue whether Saddam was adverse to fighting a proxy war or whether he would have gleefully supplied support to those who could have claimed a much larger civilian count even within our own borders. Again, we don't know that, but there was every indication that it was well within the realm of possibility. In the beginning there was a level of confusion as to exactly why certain countries with UN veto power were so opposed to the war. We found out why later. Saddam was using under-the-table Oil For Food contracts to buy support for lifting sanctions, not just to build new palaces. And there was an undeniable trend that showed this was the direction things were going. Just what might have happened once these sanctions were lifted? That's the $64,000 question. I'm not accusing individual governments, but their representatives in the UN were the problem. As far as the Zogby poll goes; you'll never hear me quoting results of polls or putting much stock in them at all unless I see the actual questions asked and I know the specifics of the sample group. The only information they provide is the number of soldiers asked. The rest they say is classified for security purposes and contend that it was random and we'll just have to take their word for it. Locations, yes, should be classified, but what about rank? What about political persuasions? What about security level status? So in that regard I won't comment. Polls are often just a tool of convenience. Both sides use them much too freely to bolster their arguments. Sometimes they're quite scientific, sometimes agenda driven. I will say though that the 85% number may not be problematic at all when one considers things like Salman Pak or what level of the Iraqi government welcomed al Qaeda members (whom we know were in and out of Iraq prior to 9/11) and to what degree. Did Saddam himself have explicit knowledge of and give direct support to the 9/11 plot? Another $64,000 question. If you want to narrow the argument to that fine point, and you firmly belive he didn't play a role then by all means argue away. But the whole picture isn't that simple. You can't narrow this down to a few facts when the whole picture is so complex. And thanks for the "sweetheart". I know you didn't mean it that way, but I really am a sweetheart.

16 Ma'am, Let me first say I appreciate and accept the apology. You raise several points, which I will address. However, for the sake of clarity let me focus on one or two now and leave the rest for later when I can give them the detailed response they deserve. To be fair, let me start at the beginning, with your second and third points: What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury I do think facts matter. I think there is merit to living in the "reality based" world. Facts, like pain, are important indicators of a problem. Ignoring facts, like ignoring pain, can turn an acute problem into a chronic problem. Sometimes it can destroy you. I do agree with you that facts are much more than rhetorical devices to end debate. I also agree with you that cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest and calls to mind Twain's comment about lies, damned lies and statistics. I also agree with you that a discussion is more than the facts. There are assumptions, biases, hopes, predictions, empathy, feelings,needs, requests and exploration. So on your first point I think we are basically in agreement and recognize that facts are part of the stone soup we call discourse. On your second point, I think we diverge. If my contention was 20/20 hindsight ... I would have more sympathy for that position in this particular case. I mean anyone can look at a trainwreck after the fact and say how it should have been handled. Lessons learned have value and that sort of commentary is important, to a point. That point being how well you apply those lessons learned to the next train ride. However, my point here -- and I am talking not just about the invasion of Iraq, but also about the radical shift in policy it represents -- is that the critique about the facts, the policy, the assumptions, and the predictions were all stated before we invaded. For now, I will just sum up the basic reasons why I rejected the notion of invading Iraq as a "test case" for the National Security Strategy released in 2002 (aka the "Bush Doctrine"). It discounted the economic impact of protracted war. It disdained diplomatic alliances that are critical in a nuclear age. It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy. It discarded historical lessons learned at a heavy price. and It disrespected the professional opinion of seasoned military professionals with command experience. Instead, the policy was predicated solely on the fanciful notion that might alone would be sufficient to prevail. The resulting "shock and awe" would light up the darkness and change the face of the world. Those who argued otherwise were ignored, dismissed, forced out, resigned, or hunted down and intimidated into silence. We are now left with the bitter fruits of that harvest and have to nourish our future crops with the poisoned waters from that well of deceit. The damage we have done to ourselves in the process is more than anything terrorists could have hoped for. I will stop here merely to say I do not accept, but I am willing to discuss, the position that we had to invade Iraq because "we just don't have the luxury" of waiting for a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud over New York. I realize that is twisting your quote a bit out of context, but I think it fairly reflects the spirit of your comments. I don't say it to put words in your mouth, but to crystallize a basic point of disagreement. I focus on that point because I do not think policy should ever be decided by panic or fear. Thank you for your continued interest and attention.

17 Sure, more people will die in war by Christmas than in 9/11, but 290,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice by 1945 for the deaths of some 2,300 at Pearl Harbor in 1941. One casualty is too many..... but avenging the deaths of those who were needlessly killed is not wrong. That whole region needs to be weeded of terrorists mercilessly, and if you have a problem with that, it's comparible to saying 'Not all Japs and Germans supported the Axis Powers and what they stood for, so lets just target Nazi and Jap leadership.' Ignorant fools.... get with it or face someday living in what USED to be the USA