digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at editorialcartoonists.com

"Liberating Iraq Would be a Cakewalk"

editorialcartoonists.com — In what sense Mr. Adelman? All I see is a walk of death.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ridgeliner7, on 03/28/2008, -20/+5!
    • Jenadae, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6WHAT WAS THAT NOISE?!
    • Mrdudeperson, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5That was even more offensive then a period.
      • Tonicks, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2I don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
      • llarbkd, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Don't say the p-word. It upsets my roommate.
  • JackStowe, on 03/28/2008, -6/+14death march...
  • YourPal, on 03/28/2008, -8/+220the cake is a lie.
    the cake is a lie.
    the cake is a lie.
    the cake is a lie.
    the cake is a lie.
  • Sucka27, on 03/28/2008, -11/+212The only problem with that picture is Bush looks sad.
    • subterfuge, on 03/28/2008, -3/+18i'm sure he's not ecstatic that he's going to be remembered as a failure
      • thefandango, on 03/28/2008, -2/+14he doesn't give a flying *****. he'll wipe his tears with all that money he and his buddies have made.
      • gypsi, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14it gets worse - he actually believes history will paint him as a hero
    • Tonicks, on 03/28/2008, -5/+7Yes, because Bush loves dead soldiers.
      • Acewrap, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4He's caused enough of them. He must have some sort of affinity.
    • sarixe, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4unfortunately, he isn't that sad for real
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/28/2008, -4/+58Just like vietnam or the civil war. War is never a cakewalk, especially if your soldiers go in thinking so.
    • swrostmore, on 03/28/2008, -0/+18I don't think any soldiers thought they were in for a cakewalk, just the civilian leadership who started the war. In fact I've read accounts of how the first guys to march on baghdad were scared ***** because they thought they were about to be gassed or nuked by Saddam's terrifying WMD programs.
    • terajoule, on 03/28/2008, -1/+15The initial fighting was a cakewalk. Everything else that followed "Mission Accomplished" was anything but.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14I agree. Toppling Iraq's military was easy for the USA but keeping the peace isn't so easy especially since the USA military isn't trained for that.
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Actually, our guys do a pretty good job of it. They certainly have in the past and there were plans aplenty for doing so this time around. Problem was, those plans were drawn up during the Clinton years and Rumsfeld's tenure had an ABC policy firmly place (Anything But Clinton) so those plans got circular filed. Same same with the requirements for having more troops - and more Civilian Affairs troops (the ones specifically trained for rebuilding civic infrastructure) - on hand for the operation.
          Rumsfeld, with his "Transformational Force" doctrine in place simply could not and would not go for more troops. His original plans for going through Iraq called for but a mere 50K troops. We coulda done it. But even the Pentagon generals who hadn't yet been cowed by Rummie protested that the Fifty Thou number was way, way to small.
          So, we won the conventional fight in a cakewalk manner - but then blew handling the rise of the insurgency. That, has been anything _but_ a cakewalk. Thank you Don Rumsfeld!
      • sathias, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4The reason the initial fighting was a "cakewalk" was because the Iraqi forces fought the war the only way they had a chance against the US's superior firepower. Fall back, let the US gain territory, then get set for an extended, bloody insurgency.
        • terajoule, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1More like the Iraq Army never showed up. After many were fired from their jobs that's when the insurgency took root.
    • StevesJobs, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Desert Storm was pretty easy.
      • subterfuge, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2yes. for example, the american tanks had greater range than the iraqi tanks, so the iraqi tanks never got to fire a shot
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9Yeah, it's almost like the Iraqis have never been a real threat....
          • cygnus2112, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1They had a longer shot than Kuwaiti tanks. It's all relative.
      • Ruger11mcrdpi, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Wow I love how innacurate you are. Go read a book. Yes our tanks were better, but they still got shot at. One Abrams tank got stuck in the mud, and was attacked by three T-72 tanks. It was hit multiple times and survived, destroying the Iraqi tanks. I am glad you are optimistic about our capabilities but we're not untouchable.
        • DemonWasp, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2So...taking on 3:1 odds while stuck in mud and surviving with (presumably minimal) damage != untouchable?
          • cygnus2112, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2They're T-72's. McGuyver could take one out with bubble gum and a matchstick.
      • VideoCop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2We should have finished the job back in '91 when the whole world (almost) actually agreed with the invasion of Iraq only George Snr didnt have the nerve to finish it
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3VC,
          Nope, that's not right. We had "the whole world" behind us only insofar as prying Iraq out of Kuwait. The western nations might've stuck with us had we kept rolling to Baghdad - but all our Arab allies wouldn't have. Considering that all our logistics was running through Saudi at the time, trying to carry on the fight with them dropping out would've been... difficult.
          Nevermind that there was even less planning done at the time for rebuilding Iraq. No, as tempting as it might be to say we coulda done it back then, fact is we could not.
          • VideoCop, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Actually our Arab allies would have stuck with us and so would Isreal, We had patriot missile systems deployed in both countries at the request of those countries and in fact had to do a lot of butt kissing to keep Isreal out of the war, still what do I know, I was only serving in her majesty's Royal Marines at the time in Northern Iraq, yes we were there protecting the Kurds, you see un published (or a small column on page 3) would have told you that the Allies in 91 didn't only go into Kuwait but were also deployed in small numbers in Northern Iraq where the real war crimes were being commited by the Iraqi regime.
        • Speed, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Dude, even Cheney said back then it wasn't feasible. What would we have put in its place? It would have been a quagmire, I believe is what he said.
    • identitymatrix, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0I think I remember some famous general or a great philosopher once say, "War. War never changes."
      • jezsik, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure if a general says it, but it's one of the opening lines from the "Fallout" games.
  • obliviousfool, on 03/28/2008, -0/+28He just never mentioned the fine print.*

    *Difficulty: all hands are tied behind their backs, and the cake is on fire.
    • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7It's a shame that military officers seem to completely forget The Art of War as soon as they leave to academy.
  • Rotzooi, on 03/28/2008, -29/+3Allahu Akbar!
    http://images.retecool.com/uploads/goldmembers/Jak ...
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1That's a great photo! Remember to cut and paste the link into your browser window as the site host doesn't like outside page linking.
  • Odenized, on 03/28/2008, -18/+1Got you dugg! Thanks for the Shout!
  • flip2trip, on 03/28/2008, -57/+8Buried for being the usual liberal crap.
    • scottpigeon, on 03/28/2008, -3/+28What is "liberal" about it?
      • macweirdo42, on 03/28/2008, -2/+24Clearly anything and everything either anti-Bush or anti-war is liberal crap.
      • tidu, on 03/28/2008, -3/+26The whole "respecting nations," "diplomacy," and "preserving American lives" part...
    • expatcatalyst, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams
      Posted by another former Republican.
    • Cenobia, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I'd post something witty, but someone else would probably have to explain it to you, so I'll keep it simple. You're an idiot.
    • Delphium226, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Your comment buried for being the usual repug avoidance-of-reality crap.
    • ChristPissed, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Thank you for confirming that reality has a liberal bias, please deal with it or seek mental health treatment.
  • suzywang3000, on 03/28/2008, -43/+2reported, commie!
  • bg2500, on 03/28/2008, -5/+14Mission accomplished

    /sarcasm
  • kemp34, on 03/28/2008, -9/+41George W. Bush should have been impeached a long time ago. Our congress is terrible.
    • dshey, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1He ran things poorly, yes. But Rumsfeld and DICK are to blame here.
    • ramilehti, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4You get what you pay for.
      And you didn't pay enough for your congressman.
      Someone else bought has bought them all.
      American Republic: The best democracy money can buy!
  • wintermd, on 03/28/2008, -28/+5This contest is all about one thing... are you pre-9/11 and want to do nothing, or are you a PROGRESSIVE post 9/11 person who just wants to change the world.

    Hint: pre-9/11 thinking worked so well, we want to go back to it?
    • coinman987, on 03/28/2008, -0/+15Post 9/11, 4000+ American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq, a country that was never linked to 9/11, in a 5+ year blood bath is better?
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed? Really? I thought it was just 100,000. Oh, wait, that study has a 95% uncertainty rating to it. What about the Lancet's study? They said it was 500,000 killed. No, wait, perhaps it was 750,000? 400,000? Gee, ya think they're biased at all in their coming up with these numbers? Gosh! Who would ever do that?
        We're fighting an insurgency in Iraq. Insurgencies take time to grind through. Ten years at a minimum, fifteen or more on average. We've been there but five. As to the 4,000 US dead, each one is a tragic loss. But that works out to something like 2.2 per day and the US has _NEVER_ before fought wars with so few casualties. Ours is a loss rate that any previous American commander would've been blessed to have achieved.
        On top of that, despite all the doom n' gloom crap coming from the usual doom 'n gloom crappers, our guys have managed to do some real good over there _and_ we're finally making real progress against Al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq.
        Yes, Iraq _IS_ a pivotal battle in how to shape the post 9/11 world. If you disagree, then think of what things will be like if we _lose_ over there.
        • DemonWasp, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Depending on how "lose" is defined, you've already lost pretty badly. If your objective was to quiet terrorist activities in the region, you've certainly failed miserably.
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1DW,
            We're fighting an insurgency over there and that takes a lot longer than just five years to grind through. It doesn't help things to have two essentially "untouchable" insurgent bases on either side of Iraq. Nor did it help to have such twits as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz running the op along with their NeoCon pals for so long. Fortunately, Dubya kissed Rummie goodbye in '06 and started up with the Surge right thereafter. Wonder of wonders, as soon as we began fighting the insurgency with... wait for it... _COUNTER_-insurgency tactics we began to rack up some real gains. We got a long way to go yet but things are looking a helluvalot better now than are year or two ago.
            As far as "quieting" terrorist activities in the region, well, no that was never our aim. As far as doing so in Iraq, well, we've been gunning them down or capturing the bastards about as fast as they pop up. Better to do that over there than have to do the same over here. And the more we jihadis we take out over there, the more stable the other countries in the region become.
          • DemonWasp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4@madoc62: You may be killing the current batch of terrorists, but there are repercussions to every action. In this case, one of the more obvious ones is that you're just breeding a new round of terrorists with an intense hate for the United States. I can't see any way in which that's a good plan - trading any kind of long-lasting reconciliation for a momentary respite in assaults.
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1DW,
            You do what you can and when you can. The other option would be sit back and do nothing here at home. This while the terrorists keep coming to us and attacking us here. I'd rather be mowing them down over there, thank you.
            Also, this not a "negatively stable" situation in that we'll always be gunning down hordes of the scum. As with all insurgencies that are successfully countered, eventually the Iraqi security forces will be strong enough and capable enough to take over such duties for us. Thus our guys won't be the ones at the pointy end and thus it won't be the "infidel invaders" cry that the jihadis could use to get new recruits. Already we've seen that Al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq is having an increasingly difficult time getting new recruits for its jihad. The "glory days" of the fighting are long gone. Our guys are to good and the nature of the fighting has changed to much that the opportunities for martyrdom are to rare to keep them coming in.
            Now they're increasing their use of unwilling victims and unaware victims for their ops. That, in turn, makes them look even worse in the eyes of the locals and that makes us look even better so we get more and more support from the locals. That's how you make progress in an insurgency. And that's what we're doing.
        • worthy215, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3You might be right that the least amount of American soldiers have died but considering that those 4,000+ would not have died if our government did not start a needless and preemptive war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Saddam never had any ties to Al Qaeda and since we have started our war in the Middle East the number of terrorist in Al Qaeda has skyrocketed. Iraq is not a pivotal battle against terrorism. And we have lost, just like we lost Vietnam. What will happen when we leave Iraq, will the terrorists filter into Europe, then Canada, and take over America? If we don't stop them there will countries fall like dominoes? No, stop spouting your ill-informed McCarthyism.
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Worthy,
            I see you've got the Daily Kos Anti-Iraq War Talking Points down pat. That's nice, now if we could move on to the actual facts of the matter it would help the conversation greatly...
            Iraq and 9/11, well that's always a fun one to play with. No, there's no evidence linking Iraq directly with the 9/11 terrorists. There is ample evidence however, linking Iraq with Al Qaeda. Iraq provided funding, provided training, provided safe haven, provided medical treatment and held meetings with Al Qaeda operatives to coordinate their actions. That much is all on record. It was an ongoing thing even back in the 90's as many a Democrat was want to point out at the time.
            Yes, Al Qaeda has been pouring its strength into Iraq since we knocked off Saddam. They have to. An American success in Iraq would be a crushing blow to Islamist groups worldwide. They know that and are doing everything they can to prevent it. We know that and are doing everything we can to ensure it. Thus Iraq is a pivotal battle in the greater war against terrorism. Even Al Qaeda has said as much.
            Last time I checked though, we hadn't lost over there. In fact, we're doing much, much better than even just a year ago. As to flow of terrorism, Worthy, you really must have a short memory. Tell you what, do a quick Google and find a copy of Fitna that you can watch. Nothing new in it, but it's a real concise reminder of the threat we face.
    • 0Zeitgeist0, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Your so called "PROGRESSIVE post 9/" analogy is a fascist NEOCON-PNAC ideology. I politely suggest that you read up on them...
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1Man, I do love the irony of a guy who's using a Che Guevara image for his icon turning around and calling someone a "fascist." Son, you obviously don't know squat about fascism and even less about Che. But hey, don't let that stop you from ranting on!
    • thefandango, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5VOAT GUILIANI EVERYDAY IS NINE ELEVEN.

      /oldjoke
    • Delphium226, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3so why hasn't bush caught bin laden yet?
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Why? Because George Bush has better things to do than chase after that bum. Getting John McCain elected being chief among them. Provided Team Hillary with all the dirt on Obama is another and provided the Obamaniacs with all the dirt of Hillary is yet a third top priority. Gee, you'd think that'd be obvious! :)
        • Delphium226, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Nah, I think its because he's useless and taken his eye off the ball. Bush has failed to bring the worst terrorist of them all to justice, calling bin laden 'a bum' is all well and good, it still doesn't change the fact that he's running around un-punished for his crimes, for murdering 3000 people on American soil. Those who rewarded Bushes failure to catch bin Laden by repeatedly voting for him need to examine what they've done and ask if they've really served their country and the cause of justice.
    • RDinSB, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Sorry man - After 9/11 every country in the World supported the United States. We had the highest ratings ever in the world community. The whole world was behind us - even other muslims, there were Clerics and Amims abound who condemned openly the atrocities of 9/11 and Osama BinLaden. All this ended when George Bush decided to attack Iraq. It gave Osama BinLaden exactly what he wanted. It created a breading ground for terrorist. It created a training ground for foreign terrorist to train using our soldiers as bait! This whole thing reeks heavily especially when they name the attack Operation Iraqi Liberation.... or OIL. Now, we are hated by the whole world. Bush is feared more than BinLaden in every poll across the globe. The United States is feared more than China thanks to George Bush and the NeoCon agenda. Please.... no more hogwash about 9/11 changing everything - it really could have, but instead - due to George Bush's war mongering, we have ruined everything.
  • KrayzieKyd, on 03/28/2008, -7/+46Inaccurate. Bush still isn't sorry.
  • usgovterrorists, on 03/28/2008, -25/+10Liberating Iraq is just another lie by the Neocons.

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5lol
    • burnstyle, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10"9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?"
      it collapsed.....
      get over it.
      • usgovterrorists, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2Silverstein said he pulled building 7!
        How do you bring down a 47 story building inside its own footprint? There are 24 columns that all need to be blow out within a 10th of a second. Then ½ a second later you have to blow out the 57 perimeter columns again all within a 10th of a second. We then watched 3 separate videos documenting the perfect demolition. Eye witness accounts state shockwaves windows being blown out and thunder and then the building coming down.
        • hawkspur, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4FFS, you ***** truthers spew your nonsensical ejaculate comments in every damn thread that has anything REMOTELY to do with the government. This is not the place.
    • Acewrap, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You're not helping with your truther *****.
    • FearLess77, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You are an idiot.
  • terajoule, on 03/28/2008, -10/+5The internet is not a truck. It's a series of tubes!
  • DrewG7, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4*sigh*
  • StevesJobs, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2It's all a conspiracy
  • SupaDawg, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6Very powerful cartoon. Props. Just don't give bush tears.
  • djcreamy, on 03/28/2008, -4/+9That was hilarious. Got any Marmaduke or Family Circus?
  • KaiSe7eN, on 03/28/2008, -4/+15Want to liberate Iraq? Leave their ***** country and see how happy and liberated they become.
    • Pillage, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1"Americans cannot leave until Iraq is 100% Safe" ~Iraqi Citizen
      • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10""Americans cannot leave until Iraq is 100% Safe" ~Iraqi Citizen with a gun held to his head by a Blackwater mercenary.

        fixed
        • Pillage, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1Wait, so you can't take something out of context to further your agenda? *****, I've been posting the wrong way on Digg forever.
    • TheBanch, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3To be honest, I can't tell if you're implying that we should leave Iraq, and that by doing so, they will be liberated by the removal of an occupying force, or that if we left, Iraq would fall to pieces.

      You're "textual sarcasm" could go either way.
      • inf0, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3'You're "textual sarcasm" could go either way.'

        LOL



      • sfacets, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Iraq is in pieces, can't go much worse.
        • ramilehti, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Oh, Yes it can.
          It can become a nuclear wasteland.
          Which is a very likely possibility when the US runs out of money to fund these wars. It will resort to the last weapon it has in its arsenal to get the oil.
    • tehbored, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I honestly don't care. Let Iraq be taken over by another dictator, I want none of it.
    • sfacets, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Well technically it is YOUR ***** country. You invaded it, remember?
  • derek20cali, on 03/28/2008, -36/+16I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

    Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

    Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

    We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If he were the liar you morons take him for, Bush could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, he owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

    Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as Bush. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before Bush came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
    You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
    That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bitches are all over the globe.
    You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
    • SupaDawg, on 03/28/2008, -8/+8WOOOOOOOOO Survivor!

      Thursdays, 8pm et/pt only on CBS
    • TheGooseyOne, on 03/28/2008, -7/+5Wall of Text crits TheGooseyOne for 53208923449281412348292983247 word damage
      TheGooseyOne dies
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -3/+12So, Bush and the right wingers are right and the huge majority of Americans that are ***** are wrong.

      And everything is fine with the economy.

      And Iraq has WMD.
    • 0Zeitgeist0, on 03/28/2008, -4/+11You clearly have your fingers & brain shove deep up the NEOCONS asshole. Your views are nothing but excuses for this administration historic blunders... This war and the Chaney Dick-Bush administration will go down as the worse administration in US history.
      Go and read up on PNAC...
      • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2The only reason Bush will be viewed as a horrible president is because of the blatent politcal brainwashing in our government-run education system. Christ, most people I went to college with thought Carter was one of the best presidents in recent history despite being a complete and total failure, as well as the man who laid the foundation for alot of bloodshed in the middle east, which got him a nobel prize.

        But hey, Nobel Prizes for frauds seems to be all the craze these days.
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Che.. uh, 0Zeit,
        We've lost 4,000 dead in Iraq over five years of fighting. That equates to about 2.2 dead per day. If you or a loved one or family member were among that number than no other analysis could matter. But taking a step back, 2.2 per day is the lowest casualty rate the US has ever endured in any of the its fighting. The peacetime, non-military operations of the US military suffer as high or, at times, higher loss rates than that. The first five years of the Clinton administration, for instance, saw 5,000 US servicemen lose their lives.
        Yes, Dubya made a hash of things and that is largely due to the NeoCons who advised him that the Iraqi war would indeed be but a cakewalk. Well, the conventional stand-up part of it sure was. Over said and done in just a couple of weeks. The NeoCons didn't think things through however, and we totally unprepared for an insurgency. That's typical of the NeoCons, when you look at it, due to who the NeoCons are - former Democrats and liberals gone so hawkish that the Democrat party and the political Left have no place for them. So, they came over to the Republican party and the political Right. While military hardliners they also brought the rest of their liberal/leftist views and agenda with them. Typical for such, they have a profound inability to look ahead and see the impacts of whatever policy they advocate.
        You wanna blame someone for the mess in Iraq, then the NeoCons deserve it. But going over to Iraq and starting to reshape the world was and is a smart move.
    • kh99, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10You call people morons (multiple times), but apparently you can't see that the big piece of crap that you wrote above is just convenient (and very naive)spin on every issue, with nothing to back it up.
    • JimMcFartyPants, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7IIRC the 'rest of he world' suspected iraq may have had WMD based in the information given to them by the US. I also recall the UN was happy to wait for the weapons inspections to take place to confirm this suspicion, which wasn't good enough for Mr Bush. There were never any WMD's, it was just a façade for getting a foot hold on the country and then screwing up their economy under the pretence of 'liberation'.

      Hey presto all of a sudden oil prices up, and now contractors are required to tidy the place up.... fingers and pies.
      • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Funny, the Clinton administration, as well as many top democrats who have stood against Bush on Iraq, swore up and down that Saddam was working to resume bio/chem/nuclear programs.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Were they right?
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Actually, yes they were.
            We've found ample evidence over there of Iraq's intent to restart its WMD programs and we've also found lots and lots of "circumstantial" evidence that they did restart it. Nothing as "sexy" as finding those warehouses "stuffed to the rafters" with barrels of WMD like we were essentially promised prior to going in. Instead it's bits of evidence here, and bits of evidence there. Stuff like finding traces of chem warfare elements in the soil at previously known Iraqi WMD sites. Traces which were too recent to be left over from the first Gulf war. The environmental effects would've broken down those trace elements by now. So, finding them so "fresh" in the soil means there was WMD made since Desert Storm and since Iraq was supposed to have destroyed all their stocks.
            The big thing about the Democrat's statements made back in the 90's though is how they're now trying to deny they ever said such things. That sort of hypocrisy really, really stinks.
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1Jim,
        The "rest of the world" wasn't just given info about Iraq from the US. Russia, France and Germany all have their own very active, very capable intelligence agencies and all three of those nations came to the same conclusion that Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program. Oh, they argued for more sanctions, more diplomacy and more time - but they did not dispute the findings of the Bush and Blair administrations that Iraq was about set to go with its WMD.
        And as to the economic angle, why would we have needed to "screw up" Iraq's economy just to inflate the cost of oil? All it takes to jack up that price is Iran making noises and they make noises all the time. Your logic makes no sense in this.
        • Delphium226, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4So what you're saying is that 'they' all thought Saddam might be up to something but weren't ***** scared enough to invade like the US?
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Delp,
            Scared enough? I dunno. Capable enough? That's the real question. Europe has quite intentionally gutted its military since the end of the Cold War. They never really had much in the way of power projection capability to begin with - didn't need much as they were aimed at the Soviets coming through Fulda. But since then they've let even that wither away. Thus the European nations couldn't do much on their own anyway. Which is one of the primary reasons they now squawk so much. The US has essentially left them to their own devices and they're used to being paid attention to. Kinda hurts their national pride to be so ignored. Thus the squawking. And thus the willingness - if only out of necessity - to let the US & UK do the heavy lifting this time around.
          • Delphium226, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Remind me again, what did Saddam have to do with 9/11? Why didn't Bush stick with the job of catching bin laden? Surely you should finish one job before starting another one? Why did Bush ***** up the overthrow of Saddam so badly? Do you hold him accountable for that? Do you hold him accountable for not catching bin laden? Or are you just happy when some bombs and ***** are being dropped somewhere for whatever reason?
        • ChristPissed, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Time to call out "*****" on yet another lying neocon shill! "Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named 'Curveball' was giving about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Los Angeles Times, in a massive report published Sunday, reports that "the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq." They also say that 'Curveball,' whom the Germans described as "not a psychologically stable guy," never claimed that he had produced germ weapons, nor had he ever seen anyone do it." http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.htm ...
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1CP,
            Son, get your head out of your ass. I am in no way a "NeoCon" nor a shill for such. By your statement I see you don't know jack about what a NeoCon actually is and nor do you have much factual knowledge at hand either.
            So, you cite one report about some doubts the Germans are only now expressing as to he veracity of one informant at the time. Wow. That. Is. So. Telling. Really.
            And how, pray thee does that have any bearing on my points?
            Neither Russia, neither France and nor Germany had anything contrary to say about the WMD presence in Iraq prior to 2003. Instead, the intelligence agencies of all three nations agreed that Iraq had reconstituted its WMD program and thus was a threat to international security. Yes, they differed on what to do about it. But at no point did any of those nations stand up and publicly announce "Sorry, Iraq has no WMD and here's the proof!"
            Considering the tens of billions of dollars worth of contracts those countries had with Iraq - hundreds of billions if you look at the oil deals between Iraq and Russia and France - they had ample reason to keep Saddam in power. Yet, not a word to the contrary passed their lips.
            Try again CP. And this time without the ad homenim.
          • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1madoc- have you ever heard of disinformation and manipulation? I hear our intelligence agencies are very good at it.
          • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Tony,
            Yes, I've heard of all that - please relate that a bit more clearly to my points. Thanks.
    • cmpsr2000, on 03/28/2008, -0/+21"Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank."

      In my area in the last 2 1/2 years:
      Gas prices went from just under $2 a gallon to $3.15.(when I bought my first car in nov 99 it was 88 cents a gallon!)
      Food prices increased around 15-20% (for example, a meal at Guthrie's went from $6.50 to $8.15)
      My rent increased by close to 30%.
      Video games increased from $50 to $60 a game. Console costs are up 100% or more in some cases.
      A top of the line GPU from nVidia increased in price ~33%.
      House prices (an asset that is supposed to APPRECIATE over time) have remained the same or fallen 5-10%. This is nothing compared to areas like LA or Miami.

      During this period of time I received more raises than any other point in my life, but my income was still only increased by %15.

      My purchasing power is still down about 15% from what it was 2 years ago, so excuse me for being one of the people who think the economy is not doing as well as the numbers say it is.
      • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -10/+1You can thank the global warming/green/bio fuel crowd for the increase in food costs. Look for it to continue to skyrocket as we subsidize more and more corn and other garbage for biofuels, effectively burning our food.

        Also video games have cost the same here that they have for the last 20 year. Hell I remember games like Gauntlet II were $70-80 in the 80s even though other new games were 40-50, just as they are still today unless it's some special version.

        Computer parts still cost less for me today than they did when I built my first PC in 98. Building a $2000 PC today would've been an easy 2500-3000 around that time. Hell RAM is still dirt cheap compared to what it used to be.
    • cathl, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Bush has never "owned up" ever. The stuff that he's done that we do actually know about is a result of him being found out.
    • DeFex, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Plagiarize much?

      "Web Results 1 - 10 of about 145,000 for Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as Bush. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before Bush came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?."

      I guess all the Repugs have this on their desktop ready to paste.
      • kh99, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yes, that explains why it makes so little sense. Apparently the entire thing is just a "humor" piece for wingnuts.
    • thefandango, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1long comment is long.
    • inajeep, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1The rest of the world didn't believe Saddam had WMDs.. Blix said none where there before during and after. Intelligence gotten from other sources was not considered. Bush's Admin wanted to go in. For there own reasons and not for some political mumbo jumbo democracy/peace. Oil. You are completely and utterly brainwashed and beyond hope, go turn off your PC and TV and gather yourself before attempting to re-enter into civilization.
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1"Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as Bush."

      Let me remind you that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
  • mrzack, on 03/28/2008, -7/+10We should take Bush, his entire administration, and all his supporters and sacrifice them on the lawn. The vengeful sub-prime and derivative gods thirst for blood.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/28/2008, -2/+15I think it should be mandatory that every 24 hour news network just replay every briefing these assholes gave before congress in the months before the war.

    They got EVERYTHING wrong.
  • Rakuseki, on 03/28/2008, -11/+16Actually, liberating it was a cakewalk. Keeping it liberated posed some difficulties but we're getting there.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -5/+12How is a country that is occupied by a foreign army "liberated?"
      • bonhoeffer, on 03/28/2008, -6/+8By having its tyrannical, barbaric, oppressive government removed.
        • coinman987, on 03/28/2008, -5/+12In that case I can't wait to be liberated from Bush and Cheney.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7By having its tyrannical, barbaric, oppressive government removed and replaced by a tyrannical, barbaric, oppressive army that shoots families dead at check points.

          fixed that for you
        • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3@coin: I'm not seeing any oppression from Bush and Cheney we haven't had from Clinton or past presidents. Technology is just making old ***** more effective.

          @chico: Proof to back up your claims? Not that I'd dare suggest you or people like you just make ***** up without any facts, since, you know, you guys haven't ever been caught red handed doing that. Just ask Jesse MacBeth.
      • Rakuseki, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4When the foreign army is working along side the current -official- government as recognized by, well, everyone else that matters, then it's deemed a liberation. I could go on but you know all we're doing is throwing about different semantic values. Are they freedom fighters or are they terrorists? Is it a government reform or a revolution? Why does a car park in a driveway but drive on a parkway? It just depends on what side you're on.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2When a foreign army installs a government it's not a "liberation." Ask Marshal Petain.
      • VideoCop, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0So I guess Germany was never liberated it was in fact invaded by an opposing force, in which case all those bombs that the allies dropped on Berlin and other major cities were in fact war crimes as civilians by the thousands died. Thats not counting the troop loss on both sides and how many years did that last? 39-45 but hey we live in an age where the press no longer give us moral support and tell us all the great things our armies are doing, no thats too simple nowadays, now our own media is not happy unless it is tearing down its own military. In fact we dont even need armies nowadays, let CNN and all the other press around the world just fight it out, I guarantee it would last a lot longer than any REAL war.
    • TheBanch, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6No, no, they're liberated. I mean, before, they were forcefully controlled by a massive military whose sole purpose was to suppress resistance and control the regions oil reserves.

      But now...
      • russ3, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1now they arent ***** gassed
      • VideoCop, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Well said. I'd also like to know how many anti-war protestors also complain at the high price of said oil and the price we WOULD pay if we just withdrew and left them to it? The probably all ride bikes n dykes anyway.
    • PeachCobbler, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Dugg for being a comment that actually says something good about the war (sort of). If we're gonna be there, might as well find some good in it, especially with the kind of money being spent on it.
  • picoritdidnt, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10Ken Adelman on regret, as quoted from his Wikipedia:

    In an article first appearing on the website of Vanity Fair in November 2006, Adelman wrote that he regrets urging military action in Iraq and feels that he overestimated the abilities of the Bush administration leadership. He was quoted of saying "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent." He also added, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." He wrote that the conduct of the war "just breaks your heart," and it "didn’t have to be managed this bad; it’s awful." In an article in The New Yorker, Adelman said of Rumsfeld, a friend and associate of 36 years: “How could this happen to someone so good, so competent? This war made me doubt the past. Was I wrong all those years, or was he just better back then? The Donald Rumsfeld of today is not the Donald Rumsfeld I knew, but maybe I was wrong about the old Donald Rumsfeld. It’s a terrible way to end a career. It’s hard to remember, but he was once the future.”
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Someone needs to point out to Mr Adelman that the problem wasn't the execution of the war. It's the fact that invading Iraq is a crime against humanity that is the problem.
      • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1According to who? IF the UN wasn't so inept Saddam would have been removed by UN forces before the US decided to go in.

        Ofcourse, if Bush Sr wasn't such a globalist ***** stain, he'd have gone after Saddam after helping Kuwait, instead of asking for UN permission to remove him (they said no btw).
    • towtow, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wow there is life out there..Thanks for your synopsis its an inspiration to know that there is others that see it for what it is.....
      • TheBanch, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1@ Towtow: Did you actually fall for that?

        "Mom, I'm really sorry I took $20 from your wallet. Was I SO BLINDED by the promise of the ice cream truck that I couldn't see how wrong taking money from you was. I feel like my life this past hour and a half has been a lie. I've been living in the dream. Never again will I be fooled by the ice cream truck's siren song. Can you forgive me?"
  • NeverReturnKid, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6Didn't McCain say something similar at the beginning?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
    • VideoCop, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Back in '91 they wanted us there and we ignored them and stuck to Kuwait (And Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds but you never hear that in the press because heaven forbid the Allies do something good), Walking down the streets of Basra this time round while I was still serving in the British military, the Iraqi public (or majority of at least) certainly wanted us there and every day I had locals walk up to us and thank us for what we did and what we were doing(You never see that in the press), Just on my two tours I spent in Iraq alone, we uncovered numerous "burial" sites that the previous regime had dug and tried to cover up. Maybe the militants do not want the Allied forces in Iraq but please do not insult the intelligence of every Iraqi that wanted freedom and still do believe that the final outcome will be good for their country. Its an insult to the soldiers that have served there, are serving there and will serve there and it is also an insult to the majority of Iraqi's that are hoping for a better future in the long term.
  • Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14Liberating was easy. Occupying a foreign county when they do not want you their is an entirely different problem however.
    • ewagnerjr2000, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0so what makes you think they don't want us there? Ohh wait those "liberators" who kill kids and women for wanting peace.
    • K4ot1K, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0What unit did you serve in over there? I assume that since you have this knowledge that they don't want us there, that you have spoken to some of them. If not, try speaking to them before speaking for them. That way your point of view will have education and understanding to back it up.
    • VideoCop, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Back in '91 they wanted us there and we ignored them and stuck to Kuwait (And Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds but you never hear that in the press because heaven forbid the Allies do something good), Walking down the streets of Basra this time round while I was still serving in the British military, the Iraqi public (or majority of at least) certainly wanted us there and every day I had locals walk up to us and thank us for what we did and what we were doing(You never see that in the press), Just on my two tours I spent in Iraq alone, we uncovered numerous "burial" sites that the previous regime had dug and tried to cover up. Maybe the militants do not want the Allied forces in Iraq but please do not insult the intelligence of every Iraqi that wanted freedom and still do believe that the final outcome will be good for their country. Its an insult to the soldiers that have served there, are serving there and will serve there and it is also an insult to the majority of Iraqi's that are hoping for a better future in the long term.
  • jjive, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Disclaimer, I dugg this.
    Why the hell can't people form their own mental picture of a headline?
    Stop with the pics of third rate pundits!

  • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+13My kids' school had a cakewalk. No one died.

    I'm not sure we did it right.
    • NeverReturnKid, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1If you didn't execute a third world dictator and militarily occupy a county in the process, then yes, you did it wrong. Better luck next time.
  • wshwe, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4As this week's events prove US troops will have to remain in Iraq in the same numbers indefinitely to fulfill Republican objectives. Keeping US forces in Iraq only forestalls the inevitable.
  • Wosat, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4This is not "Political News".

    Buried. Wrong category.
    • TheBanch, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Do you really care what category it's in? Of all the possible comments you could make in response to a topic that that deals with the horror of the million + deaths of the Iraq war... and the most productive thing you can say is "Noob, you put it in the wrong category".

      "Yes Mr. Roosevelt, your plans to revitalize the economy after the depression seem well thought out and promising. But I'm going to bury them as inaccurate. You listed one too many steps."
      • Wosat, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Fine. You want my opinion of the cartoon? It's not original or clever in any way.

        And Roosevelt's plans to revitalize the economy? I'd bury those, too.
  • piratearggghhh, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Can we start a fund to hire a hooker for Bush to get him impeached??? Apparently starting illegal wars and killing soldiers needlessly isn't enough. Someone take one for the country and give him head. Is Monica still available? Britney and Paris aren't doing much these days.
    • dshey, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1didn't work for Clinton, have no idea what'll get him impeached. I even googled it.
    • bonhoeffer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0That only works with fanny pinchin' hayseeds. Not W's style.
    • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2He has to commit perjury as well.

      Oh that's right, Clinton did that too, was caught red-handed, and still not impeached.

      Sorry, but slick willy gave the green light for POTUS invulnerability.
  • Isaac1231239, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3In Soviet Russia, cake walks YOU!
  • 41k1d0k4, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Cake or Death?
  • VideoCop, on 03/28/2008, -11/+4With the ongoing progress of the surge, and the obvious fact that the vast majority of the troops want to fight and win the war, the "support-the-troops-but-oppose-what-they're-doing" position has become increasingly untenable. How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies? You can't. So those on the cutting edge of progressive opinion are beginning to give up on even pretending to support the troops. Instead, they now slander the troops. Two progressive magazines have taken complementary approaches in this effort. In its July 30 issue, the Nation has a 24-page article based on interviews with 50 Iraq veterans. The piece allegedly reveals "disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq"--indeed, it claims that the war has "led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis." Needless to say, the anecdotal evidence in the article comes nowhere close to supporting this claim. There are a few instances of out-of-control behavior, some routine fog-of-war and brutality-of-war incidents, and much that is simply trivial. The picture is unpleasant, as one would expect--but it comes nowhere close to living up to the authors' billing: "The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise." Since the Nation has held this view of every American war (except when we were fighting side-by-side with Stalin's Soviet Union), and loves nothing more than accounts of American war crimes, its story is no surprise. At least they interviewed real soldiers on the record. The New Republic, in its July 23 issue, takes a different tack. Its slander of American soldiers appears to be fiction presented as fact, behind a convenient screen of anonymity.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Also note how the left has slowly been changing its harping points as each one has failed to work.
      Originally, Iraq was going to be a quagmire!
      Then, Iraq was going to became a religious civil war!
      Then, the US could never handle the increased violence!
      Now, look at how many American troops have been lost!
      The facts don't matter, the results don't matter, they want the US to lose. And, by extension, that means they want the jihadis, the terrorists, and the type of folks who fly passenger planes into western skyscrapers and use dull steak knives to hack the heads off of western civilians - they went all of those types to win. Great agenda there.
      • VideoCop, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Only Americans... So I guess all the other countries that have currently or have had forces there do not count?
        Full list of coalition countries:
        Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
    • ewagnerjr2000, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1yes war crimes are bad, and should be punished. I want to see "progressive" magazine write a story on some of the good thing and successful projects done in Iraq.
  • sittingduckss, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3It's damn easy to see it as a cakewalk when you're sitting in an office thousands of miles away from the death and suffering on the frontlines.
  • CATSCEO, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3That picture is so sad. :(
  • Stuart750, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5Folks, this is about 'liberating' Iraq, not the occupation of Iraq.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Iraq has a huge army of foreigners shooting up their country every day. What is "liberated" about that?
    • ewagnerjr2000, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0yea Iraqi people need to do more to control their own country and turn those people in.
      • Terasiel, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0That'd be nice, if soldiers were held accountable more often; or if American merinaries weren't given amnesty -by law- to do as they wish in any foreign country.
  • bonhoeffer, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6The Iraqi army was defeated and its government removed in less than six weeks. With lower casualties than anyone dared expect. That's pretty darn close to a cake-walk.
    • TheBanch, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Yes, and we replaced one occupying force with another. Smells like freedom to me.
      • ewagnerjr2000, on 03/28/2008, -4/+0occupying, wait are you saying American's are bad people? How about Kosovo, Germany,Japan, Korea...aren't those occupying forces? Aren't those are allies.
  • TimeLincoln, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Tough to liberate people when you raid their homes and kill their families, and they wonder why terrorist numbers are growing.
    • tricks574, on 03/28/2008, -3/+0Yes.......they do that without reason, that is why there are soldiers going around giving cash to the family of killed terrorists.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2TL,
      Um, no. Check the numbers there kiddo. The terrorist numbers are _not_ growing. They were up until the "Surge" started. Since then? And since the US got the Sunni tribes to start supporting us and the new Iraqi government? Well, since then the terrorist numbers have been on a pretty steady downward spiral. Killing or capturing them by the job lot tends to do that. Especially when the local population no longer wants the terrorists anywhere near them and now happily points the bad guys out to our guys.
  • lolwell, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Wait...... Liberating Iraq, finished..... leaving Iraq a whole different story.... whatever could be keeping us there?
  • Lane, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5Liberation was a cake walk, it's the installing your own Dictatorship, I'm sorry.... democratically elected leaders and handing the country over to them that's the trouble. We walked right in and desolated the country. It's not having left it in chaos that's killing us.
  • 0Zeitgeist0, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Cakewalk into becoming THE WORST ADMINISTRATION in US history...
    Can't believe the people voted Cheney/Bush for a second term!!!
    • JointVenture, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I am proud to say that Ive personally met one of the Cuban CIA agents who put a bullet in Che.
      • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1JV,
        Really? I thought it was the Bolivians who did that worthy deed. In any event, the guy was a brutal, hateful psycho who deserved to be put down. Hard.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Yup, more people voted for that team the second time around than did the first. And, if given the choice between doing what it takes to win in Iraq versus running away and losing like we did in Vietnam, then most Americans want the win. How amazing is that!
      • sfacets, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You have already won. And the world still hates you.
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Um, really? Well, that's nothing new, actually. The "world" has always hated whichever country is on top. Just ask the Brits about that. Unless you're being more specific in your reference the "world" as in the countries which said we couldn't win and are now peeved that we've proven them wrong. Again. And frankly, I'd much rather be hated by _those_ countries than loved by them.
        • worthy215, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0We haven't won, but yes the world still hates us
  • URnotheonly1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Fools, historically Iraq is a cake walk
  • minigamer1896, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2How I see it is the main problem that many of the more powerful (I say this because this probably doesn't apply to all of 'em) higher-ups in the military and the government didn't properly understand the middle-eastern mindset when we first went in. That being that they (the middle-eastern cultures) don't fight to the same rules as we do.
    • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2They don't fight with RULES period.

      They actually still have the balls to fight a war to win it. You cannot hold back in war and expect to kick ass, it doesn't work that way, it never has, and when you have people at home attempting to undermine the effort, even victory can become defeat, just as it did in Vietnam.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Nope, it weren't the mindset it was being honest about the possibilities of having to fight an insurgency without enough troops on hand to do so and without using the proper methods to do so. The US only really started fighting the insurgency with _counter_-insurgency methods once we started the "Surge." This, thanks to Rumsfeld and the other NeoCon fools who had held sway in the Bush administration for far too long.
  • Maevirko69, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6Aren't political cartoons supposed to be clever? I can just what the artist was thinking, "cakewalk...george bush holding a cake...walking...HIS FOOTSTEPS CAN BE GRAVES, AWESOME!!!"
  • Xenufield, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9You mean removing Saddam wasn't a cake walk? It sure as hell looked like it.

    Liberation and lasting stability are not the same thing. Keep in mind it took 11 years for our Constitution to be written.
    • JointVenture, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3We also had a civil war, a civil rights war, and survived several Assassinations.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Keep in mind that this is a generation who grew up watching entire murder investigations solved within forty minutes in between commercials.

      They truly believe in instant war, instant victory, instant government and instant peace.

      It's the way they were brought up.
  • Pillage, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Liberating Iraq was a cakewalk. He never said establishing the new government would be.
  • tricks574, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Technically, liberating was pretty damn easy. It's the keeping it stable and trying to establish a government and an infrastructure when there are very few people in the country who are used to making decisions in government. The problems in a war like this is that the enemy does not have to win battles, they just have to bleed us dry of resources and morale, which is where the big ***** up came in planning the war, noone accounted for what would happen after.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.