comment #1

ZacharyTF says ...

Excellent piece by Michael Moore. This should be printed in the op-ed section of every newspaper and magazine in the country.

comment #2

Larry says ...

I can only assume you're quoting this to embarrass Michael Moore.

comment #3

Eric says ...

I can't see him being embarrassed by this. I'd have to say it's one of the best he's ever written, and spot on. If you can't recognize that, then you should be embarrassed.

comment #4

Min says ...

Great Moore post again. To add to the consersation from

ABCNews This Week today:

KING ABDULLAH: ...the difficulty that we're tackling with here is, we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region, whether it's the Palestinians, that of Lebanon or of Iraq...

... And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands. And therefore, it is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that I fear, and I see could possibly happen in 2007.

Glenn Greenwald

Back in 2002, when the U.S. was debating whether to invade Iraq, those who opposed the invasion were, for that reason alone, dismissed as unserious morons and demonized as anti-American subversive hippies. Despite the fact that subsequent events have largely proven them to have been right, and that those who did the demonizing were the frivolous, unserious, know-nothing extremists, this narrative persists, so that -- even now, when most Americans have turned against this war -- the only way to avoid being an "extremist," and to be rewarded with the "centrist" mantle, is to support the continuation of this war in one form or another.

....keeping American troops fighting in Iraq for the foreseeable, indefinite future is itself "extremist" -- whether that term is seen as a function of public opinion or assessed on its own merits.

The Bush/Cheney administration is a miserable failure.

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

All in all, I think a sensible piece, well-written, and certainly a change of pace from the normally screechy, idiotic tone of most of Moore's writings. This is the tone that I had hoped would dominate the opposition to the war when I attended a protest in 2003 - of course, I was horrified to find that these protests were indeed becoming bastions of "anti-American subversive hippie" thought. They come out of the woodwork like pestilence to attach themselves onto things where they should just stay away.

I've always been against the Iraq War in principle, and I'm glad to see Moore calming down and speaking sense (although the 655,000 number is obvious and insidious anti-American propaganda, and an outright lie - I suppose he just can't resist).

comment #6

christian says ...

well kudos to you for dropping your usually screechy tone.

but why would michael moore have anything to do anybody supporting or not supporting this bullshit war?

and the only false death toll is the one the bush crooks peddled earlier. now they've stopped bothering to lie anymore.

comment #7

donnyboy says ...

Moore is so naive.
We still have troops in Korea and Germany.
And both military bases of operation were used to stem communism for 50 years.
Not to mention Nazi's were still causing problems such blowing up schools built by Allied forces with children in them 10 years after general combat ended.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

I can't say I agree. The situation in Iraq will clearly deteriorate if we pull out and could lead to instability across the region and a failed state along the lines of Afghanistan and Somalia. As far as I'm concerned, we broke the country, we have to keep it together. And may whatever gods Bush and Cheney believe in damn their eternal souls to hell for getting the country into this mess.

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

Now that I read it more closely, yeah, this is fairly embarrassing for Moore. He doesn't seem to have a very solid grasp of history, and he doesn't know how to spell Gandhi and Mandela.

comment #10

MathewM says ...

Fairly persuasive but like like others have said Moore ignores the fact that it isn't our occupation that is causing the current civil war. I'm firmly now in the camp that "we broke it" and I don't see a clear exit strategy without Iraq being split up into three separate governments. As it is now, you'll just have complete anarchy within two months of a U.S. pull-out.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

jeffmcm: "The situation in Iraq will clearly deteriorate if we pull out and could lead to instability across the region and a failed state along the lines of Afghanistan and Somalia."

As Sheehan says, we killed American soldiers based on a lie, so the only thing which makes sense is to have more troops killed?

Matthew: "Fairly persuasive but like like others have said Moore ignores the fact that it isn't our occupation that is causing the current civil war."

Yes, our support for Shiite governments which want payback against the Sunnis who oppressed them with our money and weapons has nothing to do with their civil war.

"I'm firmly now in the camp that "we broke it" and I don't see a clear exit strategy without Iraq being split up into three separate governments."

Fine, them I'm all for it being split up. It was a fake country made up by the British, much like India and Pakistan before Gandhi died.

"As it is now, you'll just have complete anarchy within two months of a U.S. pull-out."

Yes, and look what kind of anarchy occured in New Orleans, because we were busy with Iraq. Our military's there to fight aggressive countries, not control riots.

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

We could end the Iraq War in about thirty minutes, in a way that would make it uninhabitable for generations, is that what Michael Moore wants? The prolongation of the struggle is precisely due to the fact that, unlike WWII, it is not total war, designed to inflict the maximum suffering and devastation until the enemy's capitulation. It is far more like the struggle against Communism (roughly 1922-1991), the defense of West Germany (1945 to present), the peacekeeping in Korea (1951 to present), and other long, low-simmering conflicts. How close was the fall of the gulag system in 1927? How close was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1950? Those are just as reasonable comparisons as Moore's equation of WWII and Iraq.

And yes, since you asked-- 3000 deaths, tragic though it is, IS low-simmering. Twice that died each day at Shiloh-- on each side of that two-day battle. And Shiloh is one of two dozen battles in the Civil War. But more revealing than figures like that is the fact that, taken as a whole, the violent death rate in Iraq as a whole, not just Bagdad which is all the media ever report on, is actually lower than that of many parts of the world which are not assumed to be hopeless hells. Here are some (admittedly out of date-- last May-- figures) for violent death rates in different places around the world:

Iraq: 25.7 per 100,000
Venezuela: 31.6
Baltimore: 37.7
Washington, DC: 45.9
South Africa: 49.6
New Orleans before Katrina: 53.1

Clearly we should abandon the east coast! Bagdad is in civil war, but the Kurds, for one, are doing exactly what Moore says is impossible and ludicrous to even contemplate: building a peaceful society and becoming a democracy. I remember when liberals used to believe in the spread of democracy-- and have contempt for those who believed that certain peoples were racially incapable of practicing it.

comment #13

jeffmcm says ...

MGMax: The Berlin Wall fell in 1950? Who are we still defending West Germany from, especially since it no longer exists? And I don't believe your death statistics, they seem incredibly hard to believe.

DZ: I sympathize with you and yes, we were brought into Iraq by lies and thousands have died as a result of them. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that we're there and the worse it gets, the greater is our moral obligation to try and maintain/restore stability to the region. I don't believe in a 'stay the course' strategy which is clearly not working, but a 'pull out' strategy would be the greater evil, not the lesser. I agree that partition is probably most sensible (and inevitable) plan.

comment #14

slothroplt says ...

MGMAX (tool): Did you already forget that we called BULLSHIT on the first Tuesday of this month? Keep it up, though, and watch American get bluer and bluer and bluer...

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "We could end the Iraq War in about thirty minutes, in a way that would make it uninhabitable for generations, is that what Michael Moore wants?"

No, that's just what neo-cons want for Iran.

"The prolongation of the struggle is precisely due to the fact that, unlike WWII, it is not total war, designed to inflict the maximum suffering and devastation until the enemy's capitulation. It is far more like the struggle against Communism (roughly 1922-1991),"

Um, Saddam and Al Qaida were funded in our "struggle" against communism.

"the defense of West Germany (1945 to present),"

The only "threat" to West Germany were people from East Germany seeking asylum.

"the peacekeeping in Korea (1951 to present),"

There IS no peacekeeping in S. Korea, because our troops got shipped to Iraq, in spite of the fact that, unlike Saddam, Kim Jong Il actually has weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, we also "cut and run" from there, too.

"How close was the fall of the gulag system in 1927?"

The Soviets got rid of their own gulags without us intervening.

"How close was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1950?"

The Berlin Wall didn't get put up until 1961. And the Germans tore it down themselves.

"And yes, since you asked-- 3000 deaths, tragic though it is, IS low-simmering. Twice that died each day at Shiloh-- on each side of that two-day battle."

You hate Stalin, but seem to support his argument that one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic.

"But more revealing than figures like that is the fact that, taken as a whole, the violent death rate in Iraq as a whole, not just Bagdad which is all the media ever report on, is actually lower than that of many parts of the world which are not assumed to be hopeless hells."

So 655,000 civilian deaths is relatively low? I mean, yeah, more people die in Africa from AIDS, but still...

"Here are some (admittedly out of date-- last May-- figures) for violent death rates in different places around the world:

Iraq: 25.7 per 100,000
Venezuela: 31.6
Baltimore: 37.7
Washington, DC: 45.9
South Africa: 49.6
New Orleans before Katrina: 53.1"

You've got to be delusional, if you think New Orleans was more dangerous than Iraq. But like McCarthy, you don't cite sources, which is why it's so convenient to make them up.

"Bagdad is in civil war, but the Kurds, for one, are doing exactly what Moore says is impossible and ludicrous to even contemplate: building a peaceful society and becoming a democracy."

Yes, they really feel safe, knowing there are bullets and bombs everywhere.

"I remember when liberals used to believe in the spread of democracy--"

There's a difference between a democracy and a puppet government.

"and have contempt for those who believed that certain peoples were racially incapable of practicing it."

Wait, I thought you were above playing the race card. No, we don't think colored peoples can't have a democracy. It's just that they can't have one which is forced on them.

jeff: "Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that we're there and the worse it gets, the greater is our moral obligation to try and maintain/restore stability to the region."

Why? They don't want us there, so how will we be able to maintain stability?

"I don't believe in a 'stay the course' strategy which is clearly not working, but a 'pull out' strategy would be the greater evil, not the lesser."

We pulled out of Vietnam, and they're doing just fine-with the exception of the birth defects from all the Agent Orange we dropped on them.

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

"MGMax: The Berlin Wall fell in 1950?"

Jeffmcm, if I seem to be saying something that obviously mistaken, assume that you're reading it wrong. We are five years out from the start of a war-- that was Michael Moore's point, not mine. Five years out from 1945=1950, which is a bloody long time before that wall fell. Etc.

Of course West Germany still exists. We won, and it changed its name back to what it was before 1945. It's East Germany that no longer exists. That was the point of the war, and why we fought it for so long and won it. Despite, D.Z., the puppet governments of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl, etc. (as opposed to the free people's republic of Honecker, one assumes).

You are all free not to believe my death statistics, as you are free to believe casualty figures for Iraq (655,000) far greater per capita than that achieved by saturation bombing in Germany. However, your freedom to believe whatever you choose does not change the fact that these are, in fact, the facts. If I've GOT to be delusional, then it shouldn't be difficult to prove it. Have at it.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "We are five years out from the start of a war-- that was Michael Moore's point, not mine. Five years out from 1945=1950, which is a bloody long time before that wall fell."

And if we stay any longer, it'll be as long as Vietnam. What's your point?

"Despite, D.Z., the puppet governments of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl, etc. (as opposed to the free people's republic of Honecker, one assumes)."

So you're saying us putting Saddam in power and arming Al Qaeda was justified because of the Soviet government? Well then I guess you and Pinochet have something in common. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/27/wchile27.xml

"You are all free not to believe my death statistics, as you are free to believe casualty figures for Iraq (655,000) far greater per capita than that achieved by saturation bombing in Germany."

That's because bombs didn't kill as many people as they do today. Plus there wasn't that little issue with depleted uranium.

"However, your freedom to believe whatever you choose does not change the fact that these are, in fact, the facts."

And yet you don't cite sources.

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

Ah, depleted uranium, the fluoridation of lefties.

Sources for violent death figures:
http://www.nysun.com/article/32787
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007350.php

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

MGMax: the war that started 5 years ago was in Afghanistan, which we are also currently losing due to the misadventure in Iraq. The Iraq war is a completely separate thing that began in early 2003.

The Cold War in Europe, where American soldiers neither fought not died, is about as bad of a comparison to the Iraq war as you can possibly make. Provide some death statistics for Iraq if you can, but they won't be believed since all I have to do is turn on my news to know that it's worse there than in frickin' Baltimore.

DZ: Everything you say is substantially correct, and yes, the Iraqis want American troops out of there, but they also want a stable political situation and it is our responsibility to not throw them to the wolves. I say again, we broke it, we have to fix it. Pulling out of Vietnam still resulted in tyrannical governments in that country and Cambodia and the only reason the 'domino theory' of Communism didn't prevail was because of widespread misunderstanding of the geopolitical relationship between Vietnam, China, and the USSR. Pulling out immediately from Iraq would probably turn into a regional war with Iran in the immediate position to gain the most.

Again, all of this is thanks to the Bush administration, which have left us with no good solution, just a series of bad ones.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax, you have to cite information from mainstream, unbiased sources. The ones you listed don't qualify. I'm actually thinking you maybe really believe the nonsense you're trying to spread.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Pulling out of Vietnam still resulted in tyrannical governments in that country"

A tyrannical government Bush currently wants to add to his sweatshop out-sourcing policy. The irony is there, if you look hard enough.

"and Cambodia"

As messed up as the Khmer Rouge were, the Cambodians still preferred them over our bombs.

"Pulling out immediately from Iraq would probably turn into a regional war with Iran in the immediate position to gain the most."

Isn't defending Iraq against Iran why we're in this mess in the first place?

comment #22

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you're right about point 1, which is essentially irrelevant to this discussion, wrong about point 2 since our destablizing the Cambodian government is what allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power ('prefer' is not really an appropriate word) and wrong about point 3 - we didn't want to 'defend' Iraq against Iran, we wanted to threaten Iran with our puppet democracy next to it, which is why they want nuclear weapons now. Just because Bush's policies have failed does not mean we should allow them to fail even more spectacularly.

comment #23

Dixon Steele says ...

But here's what I want to know:

Has the war in Iraq contributed at all to the fact that HAPPY FEET is the #1 movie in the country?

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

"DZ, you're right about point 1, which is essentially irrelevant to this discussion,"

Actually, it's quite relevant. We wasted our resources fighting an imaginary fear, and now we're doing it again 30 years later. It just proves that we really don't care about upholding democracy or stability. We're just trying to cover our asses instead of admitting our mistakes. I don't feel like having any more American troops dying for a mistake, especially when I could be drafted as one in the near future.

"wrong about point 2 since our destablizing the Cambodian government is what allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power"

Our destabilizing of the government came from destroying their country.

"('prefer' is not really an appropriate word)"

So the Palestinians don't "prefer" Hamas, either?

"3 - we didn't want to 'defend' Iraq against Iran,"

Last time I checked, we armed Saddam, because we were worried the Iranian revolutionaries would overrun the Middle East and hurt oil companies.

"we wanted to threaten Iran with our puppet democracy next to it, which is why they want nuclear weapons now."

Um, they have nuclear capabilities, because we gave them to the Shah when he was in power. You really don't get it, do you?

"Just because Bush's policies have failed does not mean we should allow them to fail even more spectacularly."

Herr Kissinger said the same thing, right after he stated that there's nothing we can do there.

comment #25

donnyboy says ...

The funniest line so far has been---you have to cite information from mainstream, unbiased sources---from jeffmcm

I bet he actually believes in neutrality.

That's good. Thanks for the laugh.

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

Who are you, Donnyboy, and what's your beef? I don't recall ever bumping up against you before.

DZ, I sympathize with you, we're on the same side of a lot of issues, but you're wrong on this one, and most of your arguments, while factually correct, are also beside the point. When you say that Islamic terrorism and hostile regimes like Iran are 'an imaginary fear' you lost a lot of credibility. Maybe you won't be drafted to fight in Iraq, but when it crumbles into multiple successor states, you could be drafted to fight somewhere worse, like Saudi Arabia or Israel. Iran does not have nuclear capabilities because of a program involving the Shah, they are developing them now because there are two American-occupied states on either side of them.

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

Let me just ask one question: do we or do we not have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people to try and keep their country from collapsing, which is happening thanks to our actions?

My belief is that to say we do not is shortsighted, isolationist, and morally bankrupt. Yes, more Americans will die. That's the price we pay for letting Bush & Co. start the war in the first place and get reelected in 2004.

comment #28

vinod says ...

NYCBB, why exactly would Lancet, the pre-eminent journal in the medical world which published the study and the Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health, America's best medical school, decide to put out the 655,000 number of dead if it was "obvious and insidious anti-American propaganda, and an outright lie"?

You'd think that institutions such as those would put their reputations above partisan considerations, wouldn't you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

The study was validated by 4 independent sets of experts as is the norm when publishing in academic journals.

Here's how the study was done:

"The epidemiological research was carried out on the ground by teams of doctors moving from house to house, questioning families and examining death certificates. Between May and July this year, they visited 1,849 households in 47 separated clusters across the length and breadth of Iraq. The doctors asked about deaths among members of the household in a period before the invasion, from January 2002 to March 2003, and about deaths since. In 92% of cases, they were shown death certificates confirming the cause.

A total of 629 deaths were reported, of which 547 - or 87% - occurred after the invasion. The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.

Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis."

I look forward to your explanation as to how this qualifies as "obvious and insidious anti-American propaganda, and an outright lie".

comment #29

vinod says ...

What will happen in Iraq is American troops will keep getting shot and killed and the Bush administration will still not have a clue as to what it can do to resolve the problem. If they did have a clue, this would not have taken longer than World War 2.

Dick Cheney claimed last month that things in Iraq were going "remarkably well". This administration will be there for at least two more years. And if John McCain gets elected more troops and longer time frames are more than feasible.

So you have an administration which is fatally incompetent and, from Cheney's statements, possibly delusional and troops who will keep dying because of this.

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "When you say that Islamic terrorism and hostile regimes like Iran are 'an imaginary fear' you lost a lot of credibility."

Before we occupied Iraq, Iran's last leader was a moderate. Picking a fanatic like Ahamadinejad was just the inevitable response to the fanatic we picked. As for Islamic terrorism, if it's such a threat, we wouldn't have funded Al Qaida and the Saudis for so long. (Or continued trade with Qadaffi.) Again, this isn't about fighting an extremist value system, but about maintaining our access to oil.

"Maybe you won't be drafted to fight in Iraq, but when it crumbles into multiple successor states, you could be drafted to fight somewhere worse, like Saudi Arabia or Israel."

That's not my problem. That's the problem of the Brits and the Turks during the last century. Let them clean up that fucking mess. If I'm asked to fight, it's supposed to be for America, not Saudi Arabia or Israel.

"Iran does not have nuclear capabilities because of a program involving the Shah,"

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

"do we or do we not have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people to try and keep their country from collapsing,which is happening thanks to our actions?"

We don't have an obligation. If they can't get it together after all this time, what can we do about it? If our actions are just making the problem worse, then how will us being there prevent them from starting a civil war? It will just make them take their anger out on us. And frankly, I'd like our troops to be more than just a form of target practice for the insurgency.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

As an aside, we left the civil war in Somalia over a decade ago, and now we're backing the warlords who killed our troops! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html
Again, we don't care any more about the people in Iraq than the people in Somalia. We're just trying to forge convenient alliances to help us maintain our grip on the world market.

comment #32

slothroplt says ...

and i find it kind of funny i find it kind of sad the dreams in which im dying are the best ive ever had i find it hard to tell you i find it hard to take when people run in circles it's a very very

mad world
mad world

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

DZ:
1. Iran's current leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei and has been since Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989. Ahmedinejad, while a nut, is largely a titular head of state with limited powers, just as Khatami had. There's a reason Khamenei's title is "Supreme Leader". He's a radical Islamist.

2. I don't know who "the fanatic we picked" refers to.

3. I agree that we shouldn't have funded Al Qaeda and the Sauds for so long and still do. The Sauds are awful. But, they're also for right now the lesser evil.

4. Believe me, if Iran launches war against Israel and/or Saudi Arabia, and our military is as weakened as it currently is, you will be drafted, because America will join such a war. And it will indeed be in our national interest to save the only democracy in the region (flawed though it be) and the government with the world's largest oil reserves (scummy though the Sauds be). Geopolitics 101.

5. You're right that we helped out Iran with nuclear power in the 1950s, but at that time they were an ally. Your point was...?

6. I do not believe that the American presence is 'making the problem worse', I think we're keeping it from being worse, and it can be much worse. This is the moral obligation I am speaking about, and I think you are mistaken if you do not believe it exists.

7. Re: Somalia: Yeah, we shouldn't be doing that. And as for your point about 'caring about the people of Iraq/Somalia'...now you're being the heartless, uncaring one. We broke Iraq, we have to fix it. The liberal deep down inside you agrees.

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

PS: You do understand that I'm a huge lefty and hate the Republican party and everything it stands for, right?

comment #35

vinod says ...

Jeff, I hear what you're saying with regard to a troop pullout, but what if a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Here's the full report of another survey that was mentioned in that Post article:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

Good point, but I think that military and politican experts should the ones to decide if an American pullout would actually make the country safer - not polls. I would defer to the Army on this one.

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Iran's current leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei and has been since Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989. Ahmedinejad, while a nut, is largely a titular head of state with limited powers, just as Khatami had."

The fact that the Iranians picked someone as to represent them, even on a limited basis, who was so fanatical proves that our war is creating hostilities in the region.

"2. I don't know who "the fanatic we picked" refers to."

Take a wild guess.

"3. I agree that we shouldn't have funded Al Qaeda and the Sauds for so long and still do. The Sauds are awful. But, they're also for right now the lesser evil."

Since when?

"Believe me, if Iran launches war against Israel and/or Saudi Arabia, and our military is as weakened as it currently is, you will be drafted, because America will join such a war.And it will indeed be in our national interest to save the only democracy in the region (flawed though it be)"

I think it'll be in our national interest to work with Iran to bail us out of Iraq, not continue to exacerbate tensions which will convince them to attack Israel.Especially when Israel has enough nukes to send us into WWIII, if it hasn't already happened .

"and the government with the world's largest oil reserves (scummy though the Sauds be)."

Our national interest is to wean ourselves off of
oil.

"You're right that we helped out Iran with nuclear power in the 1950s, but at that time they were an ally. Your point was...?"

The point is that we're only protecting the interests of neo-cons and corporations, not the people.

"I do not believe that the American presence is 'making the problem worse', I think we're keeping it from being worse, and it can be much worse."

How can it be any worse than 200 people dying in one day alone?

"This is the moral obligation I am speaking about, and I think you are mistaken if you do not believe it exists."

A moral obligation exists, but it consists of us acknowledging our failures and allowing countries with more experience and credibility than us to intervene.

"And as for your point about 'caring about the people of Iraq/Somalia'...now you're being the heartless, uncaring one. We broke Iraq, we have to fix it. The liberal deep down inside you agrees."

You can't fix something, if all you're doing is continuing to blow it up.

"Good point, but I think that military and politican experts should the ones to decide if an American pullout would actually make the country safer - not polls."

That's exactly what Bush said. He called the protestors against the war a "focus group".

comment #38

christian says ...

i have to say that the left better get their verbiage right, because we do have a responsibility to leave some kind of economic infrastructure so the iraq people can rebuild their lives.

we have genocide in darfur on a staggering scale and the world waits and watches. it's criminial.

but hey, at least there's the ps3.

comment #39

Dave Polands Gut says ...

And since when do Wars have a timetable???

We're in a global war against Islam here. Do you really think it will be over in a yr??

You people wont wake up until we lose another 3,000 lives

comment #40

christian says ...

3000 lives? are you talking about our troops?

or the 50,000 plus dead iraqis?

but hey, bush wants to build more nuclear power plants to increase the chances of your death.