Were giving in to get out!

Karl Rove is truly the most dangerous man on this planet. There ain't no doubt that he's behind the give in to al-Sadr and the pull-back from Fallujah. Fallujah is now a mini Islamic state controlled by Clerics that make the Taliban look like strip club owners.

And now we see that instead of killing al-Sadr like the Bush gang promised, they are now offering him power.... Is this in the best interest of our Country? Is it OK to allow Iraq to become a bigger and richer Taliban type country. I think not...

NO..Rove see's his job future hanging by a string and he knows that if they don't get the fuck out of Iraq by election time, he and his Buddy are screwed. This is the beginning of the cut and run folks!

Maybe they did promise Sadr power but I doubt they have any intention of giving it to him. If Bush gets re-selected, all bets are off and Bush and company will double-cross Sadr faster than I can type the words.

That's a win-win for Rove. If Bush is re-selected, Sadr has served his purpose and they can quietly do away with him or Chalabai him . If Bush doesn't win then Sadr is Kerry's headache.

and do him in. Make it look like terra-ists did it.

al-Sadr may end the face to face house to house fighting as Chimpy has requested. But the picking off of a our convoys and and a few soldiers and mercenaries a day will not stop. al-Sadr is smart enough to keep the pressure on. He is in the drivers seat now. He don't sound like somebodies fool to me. He seen what happened to Saddam. He knows what happens to Bush's buddies in Iraq. You know this guy has to have something on the ball to be still sucking air. I think the Chimp is screwed on this deal.

Don

town we've pre emptively ceded.

In fact pre emptive surrender goes real well with pre emptive attack, pre emptive "mission accomplished" and pre emptive democratization....

You just know we'll eventually blame this deadly fiasco on the Iraqi's themselves.

...then that's their choice to make, IMO. Having already screwed the pooch pretty thoroughly as far as their previous secular government is concerned, we've pretty much left it to the clerics to clean up the mess and fill the power vacuum. That's particularly true of the Shi'a.

Is this in the U.S.'s best interest? Probably not, but I'd say the question is irrelevant-- it's up to the Iraqis to decide, not us. And we are certainly responsible for creating the atmosphere in which events in Iraq are likely to unfold against our best interests.

to rationalize Kerry's plans to occupy Iraq?
Sounds pretty cynical.

Can you point to a Kerry position paper or speech source that details his plan to occupy Iraq? That is the Republican business plan, but I'm unaware that Kerry has made Iraqi occupation a part of his vision for America. Please site.

Thanks.

and I love that post title. Giving in to get out.

Which would be their irony to end all ironies, wouldn't it? Stay the course, ah, but we gotta win the election!

As I've always said with them, their motto is: "It's the election, stupid." That's all they care about. Winning at all costs.

And yep, it's going to be a win-win for the terrorists, the Islamists and Iran. And honestly, I don't think the majority of the Iraqis want that anymore than they wanted Saddam. And the majority of the younger generation in Iran doesn't want to live under Islamic law either.

it's happening... We overthrow a dictator we had under wraps and replace him with fanaticals that hate America even more. The irony is striking... I'm not advocating that we stay put, I'm just pointing out that Iraq will become far more dangerous than it was before because of Neo-Con lies and failures AND Rove's haste to get out before the elections.

"We don't make deals with terrorists?"