This means the peolpe who answer them are at home during the day, answering on a land-line.

I leave it to everyone to conclude who it is that this population represents.

after more than five yeras Amrican pollshowing

70% against the run to the war
80% The invasion of Iraq was wrong

Only the Blind and Deaf, there are some in this category

The two links you provide are short and make a limited number of points, some of which are quite disputable. For instance, the Cato article (2004) makes the point that if the Kurds are left out, Iraqis are about evenly divided on whether the war was a “liberation” or a “humiliation”. Considering that the Kurds overwhelmingly supported the US invasion and have benefited the most from it, that’s a silly and manipulative argument that masks the remarkable fact that the majority of Iraqis (55-65%) have consistently supported the invasion of their own country (see http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-nonsense-overview-of-public-opinion.html for a more recent example).

No, not all Iraqis welcomed our forces as liberators, but some did, and the majority of Iraqis continue to believe that the invasion was worth it in spite of everything–a fact that most anti-war advocates have gotten wrong from day one.

The USA Today article you link is even shorter and was written during the invasion when progress was held up for a week and various media like USA Today were shouting “Quagmire!” little realizing that a week later Saddam would be deposed–faster than even the Bush administration predicted.

Like all large wars, the Iraq War is a mixed bag and its mistakes can and will be argued for years to come. I suspect you opposed the Iraq War from the beginning before any “mistakes” were made. My point, however, is that you often confuse your convictions for truth, particularly noticeable in the hyperbolic, black-and-white language you frequently employ. The Iraq War debate is not that simple.

1. Human wave assaults upon deep German defensive lines as the Soviet armies slowly ground towards the Third Reich. Horrific casualties sustained by the Soviets Were such tactics necessary? The Germans rarely used them. So much for socialist progress…

2. In Korea also, Communist human wave attacks upon U.N. forces, with awesome casualties sustained by the Communists. While U.S. and U.N. forces take dramatically fewer casualties and withdraw in generally good order to better defensive positions.

3. In the Republic of Vietnam… similar tactics used against U.S. and ARVN forces. In battle after battle, engagement after engagement, campaign after campaign, horrific casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong.

These are just a few examples of the kinds of tactical errors which Leftist forces make in warfare. To them, human life is cheap. “You assault that machine gun nest, comrade, while I hold this pistol at your back just in case you duck for cover.” The waste of human life, not only in warfare, by the socialist movements and forces of history is horrific.

And the Left has the temerity to criticize the battle tactics of our armed forces? LMAO! And they cannot name any metrics which prove we are losing in Iraq. LOL! Just a bunch of chumps swilling the ideological fervor of Che T-shirt wearing nutcases. These people would not know how to sight in a rifle, let along where the safety on the weapon is.

Leaders do not publicly admit mistakes. They say things like “The man who just got convicted is not the man I knew” or “I could no more disown him than I could my grandmother.” Or have his wife say, “You know, this really isn’t doing my children any good.” That’ the way a real leader handles mistakes.

On a more serious note, we had three choices at the end of 2006-continue the Rumsfeld policy that was not pacifiying Iraq; implement a new policy (the Surge) to try to pacify Iraq; or withdraw and let Iraq become a humanitarian crisis (the New York Times was ok with the genocide that most predicted would occur).

Few advocated the Rumsfeld policy. McCain backed the Surge. Obama supported withdrawal.

Here is the great irony: Withdrawal is a washing of the hands; it is isolationist; it is is the Rumsfeld strategy taken to the nth degree. It is everything Obama accuses Bush of being.

The Surge is engaged; it is talking to our enemies (like the 1920′s brigade) WHO WERE KILLING OUR TROOPS and then working with them to defeat AQ in the short term and build trust over the longer term. It is being a neutral arbitrator until the mechanisms are in place to allow the Iraqis to work out their problems.

As a result, the Surge has reduced violence more quickly than anybody expected. Maliki is acting independently to reduce JAM and Iran’s influence and probably doing a better job at it than we could do. Thanks to the Surge (and a lot of other factors, but the Surge was America’s part) Iraq is becoming a functional state. Obama’s recommendation would have left Iraq looking like Somalia-in the best case.

Leadership is having a clear vision of what you wish to accomplish and trying solutions until you reach that goal. Bush’s vision is to create a peaceful and representative Iraq and has forged a strategy that is making progress toward that goal; in contrast, Obama’s vision is withdrawal, and every event is a justification to support that. Whose vision is more aligned with America’s ideals?

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….