I have to say to some extent i agree.

Not many people actually voted "For" the democrats yesterday.

Most of them simply voted "AGAINST" the republicans.

It's not like there's any other choice but blue or red.

To me it is an obvious back-lash against corruption(really in general) and the handling of the war.

It's not that the Demz are great all of a sudden, it's just that the repubs have gradually dipped that low.

Someone had to stop their idiocy, and as it turns out, it was the American people. :)

LBJ would be better?

Nixon would be better?

Stalin?

Ho Chi Minh?

Pol Pot?

LOL...

I am simple minded and not as wise as many here, please tell me what "victory in Iraq" means and how it can be achieved?

Ryan,

Apparently Mul posted something particularly offensive/against the rules. It was removed by a mod and then immediately reposted by nul.

To me it illustrates a sense of denial in the admin that lasted right up until last night.

"things arent as bad as the press is saying, we wont get drubbed at the polls, stay the course".

And then they wake up today, and realize they've raped themselves...so they do today what MIGHT have saved their assses had they done it even just last week.

Doh!

"............please tell me what "victory in Iraq" means and how it can be achieved?"

How about premium unleaded at $1 a gallon?

He stands to make million$ speaking to VFW posts all over the contry.

resignation is lame. they all belong behind bars for Iraq.

Well, in 2003 it meant sending a properly sized invasion force supported by a well established TPFDL with a clear post-war plan for restabilization.

Today....?

Today it means getting the hell out of there without managing to further embolden the terrorists.

Because if we leave in a state of chaos, Al Q and company will be emboldened beyond words, and our problems are going to get a lot closer to home.

Bin Laden has stated numerous times that the moment he realized he could defeat the US was immediately after the pullout in Somalia because we lost 19 men and they got dragged around naked on TV.

So it would behoove us greatly to not just up and surrender Iraq to ze bad guys.

NOT YET...Hastert becomes Prez until the NEW congress is sworn in, in January....

I doubt it.

He is more hated by Vets than most, at least according to all the convos i have on my boards with them.

I'm with you. I don't know what it means either.

I feel pretty sure whether we get out soon (it won't happen, Bush won't cooperate with that) or in a few years the power in Iraq will quickly be a theocracy and most likely people we would think of as extremists. But whether extremist or not, they're not likely to feel postive about America.

There are five people most responsible for Iraq, and the mess it has become.

They are:

Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Fieth, and MacGregor.

All five of them should be publically shot on the steps of the capital.

The CENTCOM commander during the time of the invasion, Gen Tommy Franks, also had a lot to do with this mess too.

I dont know what yer all talking about, if Bush resigned Cheyney would be president.

You might as well put Emporer Palpatine in charge at that point....LOL.

I think you're forgetting someone. The one who was supposed to be in charge of THEM. Why isn't HE on your list?

More than anyone person alive, Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for the mess in Iraq.

He continually pressed the military to reduce the size of the force during the planning stages. Again and again so that a 385k force became a 170k force.

He is the one that cancelled the all-critical TPFDL.

He is the one that INSISTED DoD get the big hat for Phase IV ops, and he is the one that then UTTERLY IGNORED that entire all-critical aspect of operations.

Donald Rumsfeld snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, and he should be shot in the face in the town square for his arrogance.

I only wish it would happen...

Well I don't know about shot. But they should be tried. Fairly tried - but tried. I'd like to see W. on the list as well.

He is above them, and is responsible,(remember, i said MOST responsible) BUT, he did what we ALWAYS say we should do in a time of war.(it was afterall the biggest lesson of vietnam)

He let the people in charge of fighting wars fight the war.

UNFORTUNATELY, the people doing it(mostly the five named above) were incompetent morons.

The Iraq war was a perfectly sound strategic move, but it might as well have been implemented by 5 year olds.

Tried for what?

They commited no crimes but incompetence.

And trying Bush is just stoopid.

All he did was 'let the generals run the war'.

But, there is so much ignorance wrt this topic, i expect these kinds of silly remarks.

To the board, i highly reccomend three books that will supply you with the facts you need to make an intelligent decision as to 'what went wrong'.

They are:

Cobra II
Fiasco
State of Denial: Bush at War