I hear that the comedian/Senior War Correspondent Rob Riggle of "The Daily Show" has just returned from Iraq after entertaining the troops there. His report on the conditions he found and what the troops were telling him will be far more accurate than any BS that the White House writes for Petraeus.

Sad. But also kind of funny?

Can the Congress see, this time around, that the Bush Administration is using the same sleight of word in making its case against Iran as it did when it lied its way into war in Iraq?

accusations presented as facts; repetition; inuendo presensted as evidence; repetition;
lethal infiltration; rogue regime; destabilizer of the region; repetition, repetition, repetition.

Example: "Well, we don't know for sure, but it sure looks like Iran is behind the violence in Iraq. The IED's are like those made in Iran, but we really don't know who made them, or if the Iranian government is behind them. But, we kind of think it's possible, and Iran is wreaking lethal havoc in Iraq, or at least they have the ability for lethal activity."

Iran is attacking the Iraqi government in the Green Zone? I thought Maliki was supposed to have a good relationship with Iran.

Iran is providing arms to the Taliban?
Did the fabricating hawks forget that Iran hates the Taliban and joined in the fight against them? Maybe they thought that we forgot.

I cannot wait for someone with integrity to sit in the White House -- and Pentagon -- someone whose acts and words can be trusted, because those who are there now are wreaking havoc with our stability and the world's stability. I hope that one of the first orders of business will be to reevaluate who is on the terror list and why, and conversely, who is not and why not?

One would have thought that Alberto Gonzales would not have dared do no more harm, until he recently set himself as the Lord High Executioner, to complement his torture policy no doubt.

Will Bush and Cheney have a last hurrah to "save their legacy" and quickly use the troop build-up to strike Iran? I sincerely hope not, but we have to look at their history. I am looking for the Democratic candidates, and the rest of Congress, to put a lid on this administration and its penchant for war -- which Bush and Company struttingly refer to as being "tough on terror." Those Democratic candidates who speak out against another rush to war, and forcefully demand dialog and diplomacy without playing the "whose on top" game, will get my vote. No more killing, please. We can do better.

"I cannot wait for someone with integrity to sit in the White House -- and Pentagon -- someone whose acts and words can be trusted, because those who are there now are wreaking havoc with our stability and the world's stability."

I can't wait either. We shouldn't have to wait any longer. We waited years to finally elected a Democratic Congress to end the occupation of Iraq and stop the march towards tyranny.

They have done neither. They've done little more than escalate the endless game of partisan politics. They don't want to end the war, they want to sling mud at the Republicans to (they pray) improve their chances of increasing power in the 08 elections.

Mr. Smith...please go to Washington. Run Cindy Run!

word is out on the upcoming petraeus report..people know that it is the white house who is going to be writing the report, NOT the general..no wonder people have no faith in the report and what ever white house has spreading around as "objective" analysis of situation in iraq

bhumika
politics desk,the newsroom

If the Democrats had not complained so loud that the Iraqi must solve their Civil War, the Iraqi wouldn't be agreeing to meet with tribal leaders to talk, this day.
Thank You Democrats in Government. We love you and are so proud of your progress.

Sorry for the length of this one...

A few years ago, my son finished a chapter in World History about the Forty Years War. I believe the battlefield stretched from West to East Europe, and also involved religious zealots, entwined with governments, power, wealth, and armies, who were on a mission from God to seize the others' territories.

When it ended, there was no victory for any of the combattants. No one won. All that remained were tons of dead and wounded, traumatized families, starvation, disease, and destruction of societies and their economic structures that compounded the existing chaos. Sound familiar?

I can see that there are times when it would be necessary to fight, and finding that line can be difficult and hard to define. However, there are also times when hubris prevents diplomatic communication... dialog that could prevent a situation from reaching a boiling point. There are definitely times when there is a pretense of following a course of diplomacy, but there is no intention for it to be successful. (i.e. the lead up into Iraq.)

We might never have known that Iran has made numerous attempts to engage Washington in direct dialog, but that they were rebuffed by our government. I don't know what the real situation is in Iran, execpt for what I read, but I just think there could be progress made if there was mutual effort to do so and a willingness to speak with honesty, Dialog has the chance to tone down inflammatory rhetoric, and hopefully to educate where there is so much ignorance and misguided animosity. I can't help thinking that sanctions are perceived more like an authority figure publicly scolding a child for not doing as he was told -- which might tend to further inflame a proud country's anger and more intensely resist a better course of action.

I know this is labeled naive and psycho babble... but people tend to accept the sarcastic bait because they don't want to look "soft on terror." They begin to associate rational thought during a crisis as being weak. Oddly, it takes more skill, fortitude, and intelligence to prevent war and to solve conflicts. It takes a person of strong character who can listen to all sides and to communicate with people with whom you don't necessarily agree.

I am not surprised that people are mistrustful, because we do not see real attempts at sincere diplomacy to supplement the efforts by the soldiers who are trying to bring security where none exists. Instead of doing everything to calm sectarian strife, the policy seems to be playing both ends of the conflict and wratcheting up the rhetoric against Iraq's neighbors, further inflaming the area. Could regional chaos be a policy objective? Well deserved mistrust of the Bush Administration makes the unthinkable, thinkable. What a tragedy.

Only the Republicans trust him a little. They can't get their nose out of his *^+@~, long enough to smell the coffee much less a rat.

Daddy Unit

Run Cindy Run? What is that about?

Free for All

Where did you get your education?

Ex Right Wing

Remember the WMDs? Any comments on those?

Se ExRightwing, you still aren't listening. She Never said that. And see, you label her now as Neocon Republican, just because her opinion is not necessarily yours. You need to watch it again. Quit jumping to conclusions just like all of you keep saying bring home the troops. I ask you, if we bring them home now, as we stand in iraq, do you think all of the problems are solved?

Have you been in Al Anbar province? If not, how can you say it is or is not working? She has been overthere, so I think you need to use your head before you speak. I could be much more critical, but I am trying to be acceptable in my terminology, because you guys keep kicking me off here. I am not trying to be critical of the democrats beliefs, because you have twisted beliefs just like the Republicans do. but to say what you just said prooves my points on people whom follow political parties just because of the label.

You know the numbers you put up there sort of makes the argument for the Bush Administration. 3647 deaths versus 655,000 sort of pushes the argument their way don't you think? What category do you put the 7000 Kurds gassed in 82 and the mass graves found in 03. Oh, and the 500,000 Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war. Those were TV estimates, but I am sure they are close, quite similar to yours?

Where did everybody go?

he ex left wing,

I will give you this much, you get an A for effort