<p>Chronic War like chronic HIV. </p>
<p>More important thingy than Iraq: [GOP.com</a> | Republican National Committee :: Read Me](<a href=“http://www.gop.com/flexpage.aspx?area=spendometer]GOP.com”>http://www.gop.com/flexpage.aspx?area=spendometer)</p>
<p>Good name for a rock band!</p>
<p>I am not being sarcastic or arrogant when I asked the ?, I just was curious. I do agree with TheDad on our goal, but I am positive, for every person who answers the question they would grade success in a different way</p>
<p>“Chronic War” sounds like a band name my D’s friends would come up with.</p>
<p>Chronic wars, just like chronic infections, as thisoldman noted, can be kept under control only if you have enough money to afford the daily treatment. Looks like we are running out of cash…</p>
<p>Success, is using the facility; quickly, quietly, without trouble, and once a day.</p>
<p>Allmusic is right. I have to laugh at my Republican friends who think they are still the party of low taxes. I wonder how they think we are going to PAY for a potentially $3 TRILLION occupation?! Such ignorance would be funny is if wasn’t so potentially devastating to our nation.</p>
<p>Also, I bet the families with loved ones in Iraq would be real pleased to think the war was off everyone’s radar…</p>
<p>
This definition, although certainly one for rocket-scientists, has been stated many times here on CC. It just was never good enough for some people. And now that there is some tangible evidence that Iraq is reaching these goals, the topic is off the radar in the MSM (Main Stream Media, in case anyone is wondering.)</p>
<p>[IRAQ:</a> WHAT WENT RIGHT](<a href=“IRAQ: WHAT WENT RIGHT”>IRAQ: WHAT WENT RIGHT)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if being a “Bushevik” is a question of believing that democracy is superior to all other forms of governments, that the US military is filled with good, brave men and women who will do their duty regardless of personal risk, that the removal of a brutal dictator is a worthy task, and the defeat of Al Qaeda will improve the security of this country, then count me in.</p>
<p>The New York Post: bastion of intellectual and truthful reporting. ;)</p>
<p>It will take two generations to undo the damage we have wreaked on Iraq, and at least that long for our own financial situation, as a nation, to improve. To pretend that this mess is over, in any way, shape or form, is patently ridiculous.</p>
<p>Who is pretending that the “mess” is over? I’m pointing out the fact that those who are invested in a U.S. defeat in Iraq are now ignoring any success, no matter how worthwhile or hard won. It doesn’t fit with the 2008 election strategy – 2008 may not be a repeat of 2006, and that scares the Dems to no end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[News</a> from The Associated Press](<a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]News”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)</p>
<p>So, since the surge HAS been successful, the left continues to shout for withdrawal. After all, if Iraq continues on this path, it’s much more problematic to use Iraq to put a Democrat in the White House.</p>
<p>It seems that the Democrats are so invested in failure in Iraq that they will put the troops at risk to score points.</p>
<p>US citizens want us OUT of Iraq. This is non-partisan, as 65% of the public wants our soldiers home.</p>
<p>The voters will speak. The question is whether or not the candidates will listen (since they didn’t in 2006 either, and haven’t until this day).</p>
<p>Of course, the voters will speak. But when the mainstream media ignores any success and promotes only the negative information, how are those 65% supposed to think? They’ve been influenced by the constant negatives.</p>
<p>But some are beginning to speak of “momentum” with regard to Iraq. A lot can happen in a year, which is the point of this thread.</p>
<p>Finally, why didn’t the Dems who won in 2006 listen to the people, as you suggest? </p>
<p>Either they discovered the facts were not quite what they portrayed during the election campaign. </p>
<p>Or they made a calculated political opinion to continue to fund the war, without obtaining a commitment to withdraw the troops, to avoid an anti-military label. </p>
<p>Is that who you want representing you?</p>
<p>They didn’t listen cause American politicians are lying corrupt a-holes who ride their beliefs to election at which point they use their beliefs to be bribed into kicking them to the curb.</p>
<p>Allmusic - even the Democratic candidates have said we need a continued presence in Iraq.</p>
<p>McCain is the one to manage the war (and other things). He was right about the needed strategy from the beginning! Let’s unite under one candidate who can “reach across the aisle” and put partisan politics aside when needed. Let’s back the candidate of fiscal responsibility (McCan’s campaign against wasteful spending are well-known).</p>
<p>Ok - so you might not agree w/ McCain on every single issue (he’s pro-life), but is there any cadidate that is a perfect match? No. But Senator McCain has already been recognized in the polls as the most honorable & ethical. That means he will make GOOD DECISIONS and can restore some faith in our government - here AND abroad (we won’t be suspected of torture either!).</p>
<p>Thanks for reading - I hope we can elect someone who will bring us all together. It can happen (best shot w/ McCain!).</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving everyone! (Be thankful McCain is running!). :)</p>
<p>Sjmom - I’m sure you are aware of the fact that the Dems have introduced over 40 bills that limit the funding and engagement time in Iraq. It is the “Stay the Course” Republicans who are obstructing these bills, most having fallen in line behind Bush’s veto promise. </p>
<p>I just don’t see how people like you infer that the Dems have reneged on what they were elected to do. Americans simply didn’t elect enough of them. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this logic is that the Dems were not elected because of their Iraq platform. Take away Mark Foley, Randall Cunningham, macaca, stem cell research/Michael J Fox, un-reported golf outings and control would still be with the Republicans - regardless of the Iraq war. This continued drumbeat of “Congress was elected to end the war” is nonsense. If it were true, the one area where the war was front and center - Connecticut, would now have two Democratic Senators. I hope the Dems continue to try to play that hand. We’ll see how far the “defeat at any price” line will play out in an environment of troop drawdowns after a successful new strategy which was fought tooth and nail by the Dems.</p>
<p>I don’t think that the war in Iraq is going to disappear as an election issue. There is too much dissent between the parties.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We can learn a lot about ourselves from the looking glass of Iraq.</p>
<p>American losses in November were 36 dead — the lowest of any November of the war. Once violent places like Fallujah and Ramadi are now quiet. Whatever is happening in Iraq — reasonable people can differ over the prognosis — all agree that the violence is abating at an astonishing rate. </p>
<p>Oil revenues are at all-time high with $98-a-barrel oil. The Sunni insurgency is not just tired, but tired of losing to the American military and being exploited by al-Qaeda in the bargain. **Since bad news alone is news from Iraq, there is now very little about the war on our front pages or the evening network lead-ins.</p>
<p>But as House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) presciently warned last July, such good news could present a “problem” for antiwar Democrats. And now it has.** </p>
<p>They invested in the failure of the surge, having successfully tapped into widespread public unhappiness over the absence of prior clear-cut victory. Some change in their position is now on the horizon and it won’t be the first time Democrats have had to adjust en masse.</p>
<p>Most in the party voted in October 2002 to authorize George Bush to remove Saddam Hussein. Why exactly did the present group of antiwar Democrats line up for the war? Was it just legitimate fears of weapons of mass destruction, or the other twenty-some congressional writs they passed as casus belli and haven’t changed a bit?</p>
<p>The Democrats became the antiwar party. Prominent pro-war pundits flipped and cursed the effort. Journalistic expos</p>