Not that this is a choir here, but ..
Good call, and at least we got to read it.. I was unaware of the report,
and it is reasonable given the deep rooted nature of the "brothers"
that a slow approach would be effective.

Glad I could help. This scares the crap out of the left. I hate that the administration isn't playing this up.

I think you are delusional on why most do not respond to your post. In fact most people on this forum jump in for a good debate and discussion. I saw this thread and wanted to comment and discuss but knowing any response that disagrees or makes a point is met with crude language,and name calling it does not seem like a good use of time. Just review the debate on tax cuts of two opposing views by Chief and Cordelier. That is an example of how two opposing views debate and grow and respond.

Now I can handle Jj and JT response of namecalling . I will tell you how I do think about Iraq and no your opinion of what most left want to happen is wrong, You loosely use the termoinology"win". To some that means support their government and then leave. To others that might mean kill as many "towelheads as we can"

I think this war was based on false premise and manipulation of intelligence. for that reason I have no respect for this administration. However i support our troops and the Iraqi people and would like to see asuccessful outcome for all. Ideally to me it would be Iraq forming a democracy and a constitution that make the three major religious sects part of it. I think what you call"terrorists" are sometimes resistance fighters to our occupation.(Just as you would probably do in the same situation) I do not believe in an immediate pull out even though it will probably lead to a trillion dollar deficit and more troops killed. i think we have a responsibility to finance and support their emerging democracy and the last thing I want to see is failure. It will hurt America. Your article really was not relevant because the terrorists we are now battling are created by our occupation and their numbers increased because of it. In other words we have increased and recruited jihadists and cannot shoot them fast enough.

I think Bush's war has been intelligence he manipulated and because of this we do have serious problems such as serious debt, our military recruitment is down and thier terrorist recruitment we have increased. I think if this mess can be sorted out Iraq will be able to balance their government between the Sunnis, Shitites and Kurds. We will restore all the infrastructure(water, electricity ) we have blown out. I think some amends need to be made to innocent civilians of our errors that cost them the lives of their families.

I do not even care if to be successful we all eat crow and let Bush feel he was a genius and we tell him he "won". then move forward to establish security in this country. We will not have the Iraq people with us if there is constant bombings, lack of water,electricity and lack of hope.

So Jt and JJ I think the reason many do not respond is there is no dialogue or other points made just obscene language and namecalling. If you really listened to both sides both in politics and the people on the forum you would find most want a good outcome but feel there are different ways to achieve it.

I like learning and hearing all points and do not label people left or right. The world is more than 2 dimensional and all is not black and white.

Okay I am ready now for all your insults and thats okay. I think what you call others and your sig reflects more on you than anyone.

I

Well said Sam... the only thing I would add would be this...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe once the sources were checked out, it just didn't carry the weight it was hoped it would? Not to mention it was reported at the same time the letter from Iran was received at the White House. Iraq is old news to this Administration, just like Osama was six months after 9-11. Why did Osama become old news so fast? Because the Bushies were on to other things, namely Iraq. It's the same thing now with Iran. All efforts are being made to find ways to justify an invasion. The speeches have already been written for the post invasion process.

How dare you try to take the spotlight off of Iran in such critical times? lol...
And why would the Bushies point to a letter from some peasant that says what the administration has been telling us all along... we're winning there. Using the words of a terrorist to support the prez's position would be extraordinarily bad form.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060511.html


Actually this link shows that the military has met all of their recruiting goals for the past year. So your statements that the military's recruitment numbers are down is false.


The following passages from the article that I presented would seem to indicate that your statements about more terrorists being created and them viewing us as invaders are also false.

The documents indicate the group is worried that its forces are unable to secure solid footholds within Baghdad, U.S. military officials said.

Notably absent from the documents were the usual derogatory references to Shiites as heretics, and the Americans as either "crusaders" or "occupation forces" -- language common to most militant postings that appear on the Internet.

The document says that the Baghdad cells are capable of only "hit and run" operations, leading the public to conclude that "the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and nearer to controlling it, while the mujahedeen ... are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government."

www.military.com/newscontent./0,13319,779 I think the white House needs to take a closer look at what the military says

Google military recruitment down and the individual sites of the military will come up. This site comes up on the google search but when I put in the web site it pulls up the main page (to get the exact article google military recruitment down) and each branch reports their numbers and issues.

jt, you just can't help yourself can you?

Sure, they've met their "recruiting goals", which have been shaved down how many times in the last several years? Just because they met some arbitrary number is no indication that recruitment numbers aren't down over all. That's year to year figures since the start of the Iraq war. This is in FACT the case. Of the six branches of service, only the marines and the air force show improved numbers, and then they are minuscule. If you want the TRUTH then I invite you to follow this link, (you will need acrobat reader 6)

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06134.pdf


Now then, for the rest of this silliness..

All this means is that the terrorists haven't met their recruiting goals either. That does not imply that there hasn't been a huge increase in terror recruitment. Just that it isn't enough. Which is good. But to suggest that this article somehow says that there are fewer terrorist/insurgents now than there were before the invasion... is just... plain.... ignorant.... sorry

What school system did you say you taught in? I just wanna make sure you aren't teaching anyones kids that I know...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...060603,00.html

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

"The following passages from the article that I presented would seem to indicate that your statements about more terrorists being created and them viewing us as invaders are also false."

A few more terrorists might have been created. A few more terrorists might NOT have been created. Who knows? Either way, I hope it was worth $1,000,000,000,000 to ya.

I did as you asked. The information I pulled up from the Google search was from June of 2005. Almost a year old. The information from the White House site is seven days old. Check the dates on any information that you read. Military recruitment is doing just fine for 2006. Also show me where the military has lowered their recruitment goals. That one I am curious about.