right cracking job, Harvey. Well done.

That was all believable until the part where Obama and Kennedy did not continue to spew stupid from their mouths.

Is it just me, or is Harvey's Newsish Fakery becoming more focused and relevant than ever? Sometimes so much so that I don't laugh.

Too bad they didn't have useless Senate hearings like this during WWII, and why would they. That’s when the Democrats loved America, We didn't negotiate with our enemies, and the Great General George S Patton Jr. would have thrashed all of these Democrats for doing the enemy’s job of actively attempting to defeat America.

Great piece once again, Harvey. I loved the line:

"ranging from the insipidly puerile to the monumentally retarded"

Kinda sums up everthing about the left.

If FDR had been a Republican

Dem Senator #1, "Mr. Eisenhower, why are we so focused on attacking the Germans, when they had nothing to do with the attacks on December 7, 1941?"

New York Times Columnist, "Mr. Roosevelt keeps insisting that the Germans are using ovens to exterminate the Jewish people, but has yet to produce any proof. Does anyone really believe that millions of people could be systematically lined up, and lead to their deaths in gas chambers, and the president so clearly is implying. This is all just a big distraction from the real enemy who attacked Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan, led on by their allies in Big Rubber."

bigrichardsmall
Who has suggested negotiating with terrorists who are our enemy. The Iraqui people are not. WWII was also a war where we sent everyone to solve the problem not just a few soldiers. I know it's more than 150,000 soldiers but there should be at least 500,000

#7 - Posted by: patrick on April 10, 2008 03:21 PM

It isn't the number of troops that matters. It is the lack of political will in D.C. on all sides and the incessant whining of the leftards drawing this fight out for so long. If our President could move past the "stay the course" stage, and jump in the fight to win, we could wrap it up much sooner. Groups like the Madhi Army and their instigator in chief Mooky al-Sadr should have their asses handed to them in short order. Selective anihilation of such groups is the key.
P.S. - Who the hell puts a u in Iraqi? Are you a Brit? Do you also sneak a u into words like color?

Semper Fi, and welcome home from Ramadi to my son James!

#7 - Posted by: patrick on April 10, 2008 03:21 PM

"Who has suggested negotiating with terrorists who are our enemy?"

I did you goofy craker!! You didn't hear me say I want to talk with Iran? pay attention!....damn...wheres my 40oz Merlot.

Hee hee hee...#6 said "Big Rubber"...hee hee hee...

Congrats to you on your Sons safe return Echo5. Please send my thanks and appreciation for his service to his country.

And i also agree with the thought that if we prosecuted this war more in the style of WW2 instead to this overly selective process, a positive outcome would occur at a much faster rate.

I once heard (somewhere) that armies dont sue for peace, civilians sue for peace....normally after they get tired of their army getting them (the civilians) killed. Armies have a hard time functioning without a support base.

I think this is my favorite Harvey editorial. :) It could only be made better by Rumsfeld suddenly breaking into the room and strangling every last idiot – if Petraeus doesn't do it, himself. ;)

If we prosecuted the war like we did in WWII, not 10% of the Fallujah and Ramadi populations would have survived the carpet pombing. In Mosul and Basra, maybe 30% would have. Bagdhad would have only lost maybe a third.

I guess blowing a few million Iraqi civilians into soapbox-sized chunks and shipping them to Allah would have ended the war more quickly.

Mike O -

If we had done that from the beginning you may think it would have worked. i.e. Bomb to oblivian a couple of towns/cities with high concentrations of "enemy combatants" the rest would have submitted.

The problem with that is submission was not the goal, liberation was, liberation of the overall population which had been 'occupied' by their own Government and Military. That liberation was achieved with the CAPTURE of Saddam, and letting the Iraqis' deal with him. Remember we gave them Saddam in handcuffs, not on a slab.

Here's the wrinkle in that plan, we couldn't control the Iraqi boarder any better than we control our own boarders. Which allowed external forces namely Iran, Syria and the international organization of Al-Quida to come in and start making trouble by using strong-arm tactics against the general population, that we (the US) would never consider (unless we started drafting the Bloods, Crips, MS-13 and the mafia). Those tactics were the same one's Saddam used (I won't go into details because I don't want to throw up on my keyboard).

Here's the deal; we went in with a noble goal and loused it up because we didn't have sufficient intel to make the correct assessments at the start. I blame Clinton for the lack of intel, and Rumsfeld (to a lesser extent) for going in anyway.

Bottom line Saddam is responsible for this mess he's paying his price (for once I hope the devil is having fun).

We're there now; let's WIN it.

How brave are all of America's Armchair Generals.

You idiots are on the wrong side of history - Saddam wasn't any worse than any of the other despots that America has supported (Suharto, Pinochet) and the fact remains: Our invasion wasn't for any greater cause than stealing another sovereign nation's natural resources.

Now get over to Iraq, and fight for your cause, you cowards!!!

Too old, or out-of-shape to enlist?

I hear KBR is always hiring...

Lot of Veterans here, #15. Many of us have sons or daughters currently serving. And many of us "old guys" could probably still kick your Wasso even though we're old and out of shape. Move along, little doggie before you get sucked into Harvey's head grinder and come out a looking like mental hamburger.

We should leave Iraq as soon as we can. Screw them and screw the war on terror.

A war on terror is like the war on drugs. It can't be "won" like a war over something tangible like land. Terrorism is just a form of unconventional warfare. The US has a whole department for asymmetric warfare which is essentially terrorism.

I'm not a war hating hippy. I server in Iraq and am not ashamed of anything that I've done but I'm ashamed of our current leadership.

Rumsfeld only wanted to take 70K troops into Iraq to begin with while the brass asked for close to half a million. The Bush administration has royally fucked this whole thing up.

On supporting the troops:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/135490.php

On winning the war:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/101896.php

http://www.imao.us/archives/008419.html

I'm seriously waiting for a general or admiral to sit in that chair and say,

"So senators, tell me what you want me to say. Let's get down to the nitty gritty here. You aren't going to listen to a word I say, you're not going to accept my assessment of what's going on over there, nor are you going to accept that I may know better (having actually been on the ground there) than you, what the troops need and how they feel. So just lay out the pertinent talking point and I'll repeat them for you. I will then call a press conference and tell the American people the truth, So who's on first?"

Of course he'd have to be either independently wealthy or really close to retirement or really, really brave. They'd savage him, well they do that anyway but ...OK never mind.

I like how all your comments are positive. Why don't you post one saying what a load of crap this is. Goebbels would have loved every last one of you.

echo5 congratulations on your son's safe return home. I too thank him for his service to the country. I served in the USN so I understand the sacrifice somewhat I didn't serve in wartime but was ready to go when the Iranians kidnapped our embassy personel. I'm not sure I agree with you that only leftists are dragging this war out, yes there was outcry when we had the surge and the president sent the troops anyway. There is evidence that Rumsfeld did not make sure that we had necessary resources to fight this thing the congress sent all of the funds that the president asked for. I do agree that selective anihilation is a good strategy,and I don't believe in having your hands tied in battle is a good thing, but the objective as said was to oust Saddam Hussein from power we did that now what? We haven't gotten Osama Bin Laden, Clinton may have had a chance to get him but this president doesn't think about him anymore and he isn't even a topic of the presidential debate.
If the best you have is to go after my misspelling of Iraqi by following the regular Q-U-Vowel rule, you sure don't have much.

So barrak all Iranians are terrorists? The leaders are terrorists? Diplomacy with a sovereign nation is not a good public policy? You have been reading too much Richard Marcinko.

Del Wasso -

I'm not an Armchair General and am insulted by the insinuation. I do understand we that critize after the fact have the huge advantage of hindsight, what we don't have is access to the various U.S. Intelligence Services for evaluation prior to making a decision. Which thanks to William Jefferson Clinton, Bush and his administartion barely had.

As far as Saddam being "no worse" than other dictators the US has tacitly supported; Saddam is the only one that used WMDs against his own population, invaded a neighboring country that the US had a defence treaty with, thumbed his nose at more than a dozen U.N resolutions for more than a decade, not to mention the simple fact the terms of the cease fire back in '91 were violated over and over and over again.

As for stealing there resources our military in theatre is paying >$3 a gallon for gas while the Iraqi civilians are paying

Regarding your last point ... USMC '85 to '91 Honorably Discharged as a Sergeant of Marines. I recieved an enlistment waver for migraine headaches when I enlisted in late '84, the Marine Corps would not grant that waiver to me again when I tried to re-enlist at the age of 40. So I guess your right; to old and out of shape.

one last thing what's the KBR ?

Wild Bill Kelsoe -
Thank you for your service to our country. So you're saying this war is not about oil. With all due respect, you're very naive. Even Alan Greenspan admitted it. David Petraeus suggested that an early exit by American troops could disrupt the flow of oil from Iraq and push today’s record-high US gasoline prices.
Anyway, it sounds like this blog is full of terrorist. For those who want to bomb a country to oblivion, what's the difernce between you and the terrorist.
It's obvious that many of you who support this Iraq invasion, are profiting from it. Or you are completely brainwashed by Bush & Cheney who have the weak, believing that we're fighting this war to keep us safe from terrorist. First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Why don't you guys do some research. This whole war was based on hundreds of lies. War is like a game of chess. Troops are are nothing but pawns. Do you really think our government cares about you, except for election time? Tell that to all the Vietnam and Iraq veterans, who come back heroes, and Walter Reid won't even call them back. If not for the liberals who exposed how are injured veterans were being treated after returning home, it would have still continued. Now, how can you say "Support the troops" and not care about them when they return. Another thing liberals did was to expose how our troops didn't have the proper gear for combat. The Republican party, are all about War War War. Bush himself has said in a speech, " We're the party of war". Strange coincidences - The Bush family and the oil industry, Haliburton ( Cheney )contracts with the Dept of Defence. Exxon making record profits. Billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Oh yeah check this out - Exxon is interested in "helping" to develop Iraq's huge oil reserves.
For those of you who love our current administration, google - Bohemian Grove.
DO YOUR RESEARCH.
I did and that's why now, I'm an Independant

Amazing! Every single tired, worn-out over-used catch phrase of the left in one poorly spelled, poorly punctuated spew of verbal diarea! From Haliburton to Moral equivalency, I can't find one original or independent thought in it. Is this another one of your newsfakes?

Hey beyond - What are you doing on this webaite. it's not for you.