"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it,"

While I'm not a huge McCain fan, he makes a good point. It doesn't do any good to say "I told you so."

Y'know, I agree with you; there isn't a lot of practicality to saying "I told you so". It doesn't end the war, it doesn't create new strategies, it doesn't offer solutions. But in this point in history, where egregious and overwhelming error and incompetence seems to be the M.O. of our gov't., occasionally attention does need to be officially drawn to someone being a fuck up.

I'm so glad we have so many politicians willing to make an "I told you so" statement on the backs of our soldiers lives. Scum of the earth may be an apt name for them.

Who's really at fault here? An administration that commits our forces to an unwinnable war, or the folks in gov't who after years of sitting by while the whole situation spins out of control are finally in a position to hopefully start applying the brakes to a run-away train? We'll be lucky if we are able to start pulling troops out within 2 yrs time, many more will die in that time. It won't be the fault of the politicians proposing this resolution. (Except for the ones who voted lemming-like to give W the authority to wage this war in the first place)

I'm so glad we have so many politicians willing to make an "I told you so" statement on the backs of our soldiers lives. Scum of the earth may be an apt name for them.

The most ironic thing to all of this is that the same Senators who are saying they will sign on to this resolution also confirmed General Patraeus, who, during his testimony, said he fully supported the surge strategy. If you're against the surge, why would you confirm the guy who both supports it and is going to lead it? Bunch of bullshit artists.

Agreed.

The resolution that Senator McCain is talking about accomplishes nothing. It is a vote of "no confidence," nothing more. It's the same as someone sitting in the back seat saying "Waaah, I don't think we should take this highway" without proposing a different route.
The most ironic thing to all of this is that the same Senators who are saying they will sign on to this resolution also confirmed General Patraeus, who, during his testimony, said he fully supported the surge strategy. If you're against the surge, why would you confirm the guy who both supports it and is going to lead it? Bunch of bullshit artists.

Patraeus, from all I've read, is about the smartest, most experienced guy we've got in the armed forces right now on counter-insurgency. He had tremendous success as a field commander in Iraq because he approached the battle as a counter-insurgeny from 2003. If he had been running things at the top back then, we might not be in this mess now.

Regardless of whether one thinks that it may be too late to fix the problems in Iraq at this point, Petraeus is the right man for the job. That's how you can support him, but not the surge without being a bullshit artist or hypocrite.

During his testimony, Petraeus said that, in order to properly deal with the violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province, he would need more troops. When asked if the number President Bush quoted was enough, he said he would ask for more if he thought they were needed. Petraeus is confirmed and wished the best of luck.....and at the same time they want to pass a resolution that essentially opposes what he said was needed. As I said...bullshit artists.

During his testimony, Petraeus said that, in order to properly deal with the violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province, he would need more troops. When asked if the number President Bush quoted was enough, he said he would ask for more if he thought they were needed. Petraeus is confirmed and wished the best of luck.....and at the same time they want to pass a resolution that essentially opposes what he said was needed. As I said...bullshit artists.

Or possibly just people who are able to have more than one line of reasoning or thought on a situation, as the multi-faceted and complex issues of governance and politics require.

It would appear that a counter insurgency expert would not be required if one intends to pull out the troops as soon as possible. For that all one really requires is a logistical specialist. Those planes and helicopters aren't going to fuel themselves, you know. It just seems that this fellow is a bit over qualified for his position if Congress gets its way.

PD,

Which do think describes Iraq better: counter-insurgance or religous war (sunni vs. shia)?

The president nominated him, and the Congress knows that short of cutting off funding, a move they are unlikely to consider this year, the president is still calling the shots on the war.

Iraq is in a state of insurgency against American troops and the Iraqi "government". Choosing anyone BUT an expert in counter-insurgency would be a poor strategic move unless one wants the war to start going worse than it already is. Fortunately, the Dems in congress do NOT want the war to go worse than it is, contrary to Republican fueled myths.

The president nominated him, and the Congress knows that short of cutting off funding, a move they are unlikely to consider this year, the president is still calling the shots on the war.

Iraq is in a state of insurgency against American troops and the Iraqi "government". Choosing anyone BUT an expert in counter-insurgency would be a poor strategic move unless one wants the war to start going worse than it already is. Fortunately, the Dems in congress do NOT want the war to go worse than it is, contrary to Republican fueled myths.

A fascinating report today lends more weight to those who suspect that certain bellwether bombings in Iraq are being carried out by the U.S. in order to deliberately foster chaos throughout the region.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international...e_continue

Several credible commentators have presented intriguing evidence that clearly suggests some of the major bombings being carried out in Iraq are the handiwork of those who wish to keep the country mired in a state of anarchy and chaos.

Preceding comments made by former U.S. envoy to the United Nations John Bolton on the weekend, that the U.S. "has no strategic interest" in a united Iraq, an agenda to maintain division and ethnic tension in Iraq can be seen as long term plan and the only way to finally capture and enslave a country that has historically thrown out its occupiers on every occasion.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote, "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

That agenda was again underscored last year when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, told the New York Sun that a civil war would aid the US and Israel because it would entangle Iran and Syria and enable those countries to be picked off by the new world empire without the need to sell a direct invasion to the public.

This is precisely the line of propaganda the Bush administration has now chosen to adopt following a U.S. raid on an Iranian consulate in Iraq and today's allegations that Iranians were directly involved in an attack on a US compound in Karbala, Iraq, that killed five US soldiers.