Comment by lobo

Has anybody mentioned, or does anybody even care, that Baker’s law firm is representing Saudi Arabia?
To me, that sounds like a conflict of interest, from the get-go!

Comment by NCLivingBrit

Well of course they do!

I mean the Saudi’s want the US to leave so they can cut back on their funding on the insurgency.

It’s much cheaper to oppress women and children than it is to fight the USA’s finest.

Comment by Kristopher

NY Post take on Baker…..

Comment by Lord Nazh

Love the fact that US troops are the reason they kill Iraquis o.O

He didn’t word it exactly, but even the MSM/Dhimmikrauts can understand that point.

Comment by LC Gunsniper

Fetid minds think alike.

Comment by TPCrasher78

Iran’s Ambassador rips into Jews for Holocaust and their fault for WWII and current Middle East problems…..

Mr. Baker, you still want to bring those genocidal koranimals to the negotiating table? They’re MOST LIKELY to whip up the jihadists that are already pulling overtime killing THEIR OWN and any Allied and American they find.

Did negotiating with Hitler work?

Did a pow-wow with Ambassador Nomura go well on December 7, 1941? (Japs had the balls to dispatch their ambassador with war declaration during the attack, on Sunday, during church services)

Did wacking Mussolini’s knuckles over invading Ethiopia and genocide work, League of Nations?

when does negotiating with a tyrant ever work?

NEVER. Unless your a liberal ostrich with your buried so far up Michael Moore’s ass that sunlight is not an issue…….

I don’t wanna be right, but the next MAJOR terrorist attack or provocation for war will drag the WHOLE WORLD into it and no one can sit this one out. If you do, you probably side with the Islamofascists- France, Belgium, etc…….

Comment by E L Frederick

So I get out of bed this morning, write a post or two on this subject… next thing I know… THIS post is liked to from Salon.

I haven’t published most of the moonbatty hate, but my black little heart is going to be warm for at least a week.

Comment by Lord Nazh

Talking to Jamil Hussein and he said that the Iraquis are glad the evil americans are leaving

/sarc

Comment by Cannon Fodder

It will never cease to amaze me the gutless nature of our government. We all know what needs to be done. None of these fucknozzles has the fortitude to do it!

If we leave Iraq now, it will end up another Afghanistan. But no matter what it will be our fault in the end.

Comment by DJ Allyn, ITW

“The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been one of our foremost demands since 2004. The presence of foreign troops in our country is the reason why we continue to fight, resulting in the killing of thousands of Iraqis,”

What did you expect, Misha? These people do not want us there imposing ourselves into their lives. What would be the name of your militia if some other country were occupying the United States? What would your demands be?

Iraq is a disaster that is only getting worse — whether we are there or not. The crazy, ‘traitorous’ left-wing predictions have pretty much come true.

Pull our troops out to the borders of Iraq to stem the flow of outside fighters and let the Iraqis deal with their own problems.

Comment by juandos

Ahhh DJ your naivete is almost touching…

I guess it doesn’t bother you to parrot the sentiments of the party of the Seditious & Sleazy, a party with a long and strong track record of pandering to the enemy (hat tip to Gateway Pundit), right?

Comment by Thought For Food

I read here a lot, and see quite a few people blast everyone, outside of the troops, who are involved in this. I believe that is because most of the people here are MOST concerned with making sure our troops are taken care of, irrespective of why we are there. I am grateful for that because I believe it mirrors the reason many of them are there, to protect their fellow servicemen.

What I do not see a lot of is an actual solution. I hear people blasting Baker and his commission. I hear some blasting Gates already (though I am truly mystified by someone either defending Runsfeld, or wishing he remain in that post.) I read attacking commentary on just about everyone involved (I understand the critical remarks of the Democrats, at least most of them.) What is it the US should do? I guess I have a problem when I see someone pointing to a problem, offering no solution. It reminds me of someone pointing to the balance in their bank account screaming “I don’t have any money!” Then they lie on the couch and watch TV.

If we are supposed to do it unilaterally, we will need a much more militarized society than we currently have. That being the case, we would need to begin to change the gestalt of our nation. Only, history predicts the outcome of that shift. I just finished reading “Flags of our Fathers” and one of the more interesting observations in the book was the effect of the militarization of Japan. I successfully pull that off; you have to be so powerful that you are able to obliterate the combined forces of all the enemies lined up against you. That leads to the possibility of nuclear conflict, and regardless of what anyone says, the consequences of that are unthinkable. It is one thing to drop an atomic bomb on a couple of cities to avoid the massive causalities of a land invasion of Japan. It is quite another to take that option to a group of people, in many different countries, that are in large part civilian when they are not in jihad mode. I know that they would launch or detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil if they could. That my friends is a completely different scenario to having to obliterate the threat of terrorism.

With all of that being said, it leads me to this: because of the unreal nature of our being willing/able to fight with such a strategy, there is no other option than to look for diplomatic means. It may only be plugging a hole in the dyke, but the certain destruction of our nation that would occur should we decide to dedicate all of the resources of our nation to eliminating a terrorist threat through force is unavoidable. The reality of what that war would look like is beyond comprehension, and most certainly beyond our national will. We have to deal with what is, not what “should” be.

Pull out the clue bat if you must, but I am simply looking for some coherent response as to what real solution there is other than dedicating ourselves solely as a nation to the destruction of our enemies. At some point, like it or not, and in my opinion, you must find a way to pull people away from the edge of enough desperation and hatred to dedicate themselves to strapping munitions to their bodies and killing. You can eliminate them, which in many cases will push more people to that edge who were once not there, or you can try something else. I believe war is a tool, it is not the solution. I understand that many will disagree, and I hope that I will receive some thoughtful response, and not just messages telling me I am a “fucktard.” If you need confirmation of that, call my ex, she will be more than willing to confirm.

Please know that I am asking because I do care about our troops. I believe theirs is the most noble of sacrifice because for the great majority it is a sacrifice for their fellow soldiers when it comes to actually facing the weapons arrayed against them.

Comment by Thought For Food

Thanks Misha, past alot of the severe beatings many of the posters here dish out, I read A LOT of comments by people who actually know why they think what they think, and have sound reasoning for it and not just some “sound bite” opinion. I appreciate it because on a lot of other blogs, there is conversation that is devoid of any real knowledge of what is going on, and a lot of shit just thrown out without ANY knowledge or factual basis. Whether you get beat or agreed with here, it almost always can come with facts and knowledge that is astounding in many instances. That is why I read.

Comment by Emperor Misha I

Thanks, Thought for Food.

You have a very good point, one I’ve often asked myself in the past when all it seemed that we got from the Democrats was “we don’t know what we’d do different, but what you’re doing is wrong.” I despise that because it’s useless, so it’s only fair that I should address it when the question is asked of me.

I think I’ve answered quite a bit of your question in my reply to DJ, but let me elaborate nonetheless:

I don’t want to, I never saw it as our role to impose ourselves on other people. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I don’t want to have to build democracies, because we have other issues to deal with and I hate having to divert resources to doing for others what they ought to do for themselves.

On the other hand, when you have a situation that is a national security issue for US, we have to deal with it. For all that I care, the rest of the world can go to Hell in a hand basket. I’d rather it didn’t, but it is not our job to keep them from killing themselves.

But when the situation abroad becomes a threat to us, we have to deal with it. That is the job of government. The only LEGITIMATE job of government. To ensure that the citizens that they govern are safe.

So what to do different about Iraq? Well, first of all, it’s not an issue of how many troops we have there. What we have there already is more than enough to do anything we damn well please. The problem is that they don’t have a clear mandate and objective and, much worse, that their hands are tied behind their backs because our current government, may their hemorrhoids swell and eat them up, apparently are more interested in being “compassionate” than victorious.

We can send in half a million extra troops, but it won’t make a lick of difference as long as they’re not allowed to do their job, which is to destroy the enemy. That’s what soldiers do, and that’s what they’re trained to do.

So here’s what I propose:

1) The Kurds are not a problem. We’ll leave them their autonomy and not interfere with their internal affairs as long as they behave in a civilized fashion. We’ll protect them if attacked, but other than that we’ll let them run their own areas as they see fit as long as they don’t pose a threat to us.

2) The Sunnis and Shias will be faced with this ultimatum: If you control your own areas and actively prevent attacks on our forces, we’ll stay and protect you from outrages from the other faction. If you choose not to, if you choose to tolerate the existence of insurgents in your areas, we’ll let you, Sunnis and Shias, fight it out among yourselves. It’s not our problem and we shouldn’t waste resources and blood on it. We’ll pick up the pieces once you’re done behaving like apes.

We will not accept the formation of autonomous militias operating outside the laws of civilized behavior, and we will exterminate any such force with extreme prejudice whenever it appears. On the other hand, we will not protect areas that accept, aid or comfort such organizations. If you MUST behave like savages, you’re on your own. Have at it. We will ONLY support and HELP protect areas willing to commit to civilized behavior.

If you want our protection, you have to ask for it and, more importantly, you have to earn it. If you do that, you have it. If you don’t, have fun.

It’s not our job to save Neanderthals from themselves, it’s our job to protect the safety of our nation. Anybody who wants to join us in making this planet more safe are welcome and we should aid them. Anybody wanting to have it both ways should be left to fend for themselves.

And we should start following the Geneva and Hague Conventions to the letter, meaning that anybody operating outside of them should be executed on sight.

THEY’RE the ones endangering innocent civilians, and they should be exterminated with extreme prejudice.

Comment by juandos

Hey eric90230, apparently there is now a turd swimming in Carter’s coffee today also… :lol_wp:

Comment by readerjp

His eyes look mad in that picture. Of course, he IS totally DERANGED.

Here’s some more on the reaction to the Iraq Study Group report:

Arabs Say Report Shows Defeat of America - Maggie Michael
Many Arabs on Thursday interpreted an American advisory panel’s bleak assessment of President Bush’s Iraq policies as proof of Washington’s failure in the Middle East. “This report is a recognition of the limitation of American power,” said Abdel Moneim Said, head of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “In the short term, America will highly suffer the loss of its reputation and credibility in the region.” “Al-Qaeda must smell victory, but it’s a negative victory that comes from the defeat of America in Iraq,” he said.
Mustafa Bakri, an outspoken critic of the U.S. and editor of the Egyptian tabloid Al-Osboa, told state-run television that the report indicated “the end of America.” Bakri urged Arab countries to “capture the moment as America now is in its weakest period.” (AP/Washington Post)

Seeing as Arabs have no connection to reality, everything is perception or fantasy with them, this is a VERY VERY VERY BAD THING for the U.S.