You guys are precious in your ludicrous sycophancy for a liar and sock-puppet.

As has been stated before, this new 'data-mining' angle is a chimera and a distraction that neither addresses nor negates the wider issue of illegality of the program(s). The frankly convoluted 'explanation' you offer is no more convincing than the assurances of the Administration.

If you're going to resurrect the whole sock-puppet non-issue, one can only presume you don't actually wish to discuss anything. Perhaps you're better off peddling it somewhere else.

America is winning in Iraq, and the actual offensive portion of the surge only just recently started.

The war was finished back in April 2003.

What precisely are US troops supposed to be "winning" now?

Ellison and Rep. Jerry McNerney both stated that Iraq has improved, and looking good. Spin that how you wish, but fact is...they said it.

And the Flat Earth Society continues to say that, well, the planet Earth is actually a pancake.

Do you really want to hang your opinion expressly and solely upon what those two say?

Incidentially, I apologize for mis-spelling your handle earlier.

Do you understand what happens if America loses the battlefront in Iraq, in this GWOT? Do you actually want to surrender to our Enemies?!

What enemies? Where? What uniforms do they wear? What flag do they salute?

Please enlighten the rest of us. The Bush Administration and its cheerleaders certainly haven't.

Lets see...I'm on America's side, and am suppose to Surrender to that losing side (if America loses, as ALupin suggests that it will) in this GWOT!?! ALupin, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Clearly you don't understand the dimensions and characteristics of this so-called GWOT, never mind the situation in Iraq. Until you do, expect only mockery for your stupidity.

“We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, 2-17-98

Available evidence indicates Operation Desert Fox did precisely this back in 1998.

Honestly, its like you wished Hussein actually did have banned weapons ready to use. Does human life mean that little to you?

Outlaw cars. Meanwhile we have this headline from AP....

Which of course has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

But, hey, one can't expect a psychopath to keep to the subject in the first place. They live in their own reality.

He finally admits to the central problem!

We broke it, we should fix it.

VERY good, shooter. And tell us now, how soon are you going to do your patriotic duty and enlist, so you can go over there and fix this mess you and your crowd has made?

This War is going to last for a long time (decade at least).

This isn't a "war" in the sense you clearly think it is. You might as well be saying we're going to war against pocket knives or box-cutters.

We aren't even at "war" with Iraq. What we have here is a messy, undermanned, under-resourced, and incompetently run occupation of a country with a millennia of sectarian and tribal divisions.

The battlefront in Iraq is going to last until the Iraqis can take over.

That presupposes the Iraqis even identify themselves as 'Iraqis' in the first place. Tribal identity trumps all in the current environment.

Remember, Clinton did nothing for National Security, other than talk, lob a missile, rattle-a-saber, refused to take Osama (I have a link of that on tape), and had Clarke write the December 2000 "NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE" report that I mentioned earlier. Clinton left a big mess...

You're confusing the issues.

First, the Clinton Administration took the threat of Al Qaeda seriously enough that it had a full-scale pushback plan ready for implementation in 2000, but their successors had other priorities.

Second, the Clinton Administration also understood the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other.

OK, America is going to be in Iraq about 3-4 more years before we lower the Troop count down to about 80,000.

To what end, precisely? What is this occupation of another country, one that no threat to the territorial sovereignty or homeland security of the United States, supposed to achieve?

In other words, without the benefit of hindsight you're useless.

Get this through that simian skull of yours:

There are no more good, 'humane' options thanks expressly to the mess your crowd has made of everything.

The sectarian violence will continue to get worse regardless of however many or few US troops occupy the country.

The Iraqi government has no incentive to seek reconciliation between its factions so long as US troops continue to act as both security and an easy distraction.

The continued occupation of Iraq by US troops accomplishes NOTHING of value to US national or security interests, and continues to undermine both our moral authority and the military's ability to respond to real threats.

This is has been a disaster from start to finish. The only intelligent thing to do is for the US to withdraw its forces and let the Iraqis come together or split apart as they will.

George W Bush broke Iraq. Let's NOT allow him to break anything else, eh?

Well who knew Democrats would come out on record as being in favor of illegal invasion of another country that hasn't attacked us?

In contrast to the perfectly "legal" invasion of Iraq, a country that "attacked us"?

Keep digging yourself deeper at this rate, and you'll be in China! And out of our hair!

Exactly what cesspool did you crawl out of again?

Look bud, it took all of one minute to find out the top name was running for Dem office at one time.

Oh peddle it somewhere else, rentboy. You've been caught lying through your teeth (the handful that haven't already rotted away). You're stinking the place up.