leewhite wrote on October 20, 2007 09:47 AM: Always a pleasure to hear the Okie token spewing GOP misinformation. Shouldn't he save his venom for George W and his war? If ever a guy has been used, it's J.C.

DICK JACKSON wrote on October 11, 2007 08:15 PM: BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN MR. J.C. WATTS.THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AS A WHOLE, LED BY SENATOR REID, OBAMA ,HILLARY CLINTON AND THE 'MOVE ON .ORG' ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE SILENCED BY ALL MEDIA FOR THE COMMENTS THEY HAVE MADE ABOUT OUR SUCCESSES IN IRAQ. AS AMERICANS THEY SHOULD BE PART OF OUR WINNING TEAM INSTEAD OF SHAMEING OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE OVER THERE DOING THEIR SHARE TO PROTECT US ALL HERE AT HOME. IF THEY HAD MADE THESE SAME STATEMENTS DURING WORLD WAR '2', THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED TRAITORS AND TREATED AS SUCH.

Vince wrote on September 24, 2007 11:11 AM: Hey, J.C. I'm of the opinion that you don't really believe a single word of this propaganda you spread in these pieces you write. You just want to please the right wing.... please the corrupt President, Vice-President and their chieft corrupter... Karl Rove. You will learn one day that these folks are using you. Say something they don't like.... even a little... and they'll drop you like a (bad) medicine ball. You're an enabler... you are one of those talking heads that can be credited with the deaths of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis... not to mention the looting of the taxpayers' money. More than a half trillion dollars went into the Iraq thing, not without your support. The turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the many, many laws and regulations being broken daily by big business... and you helped with that. I get a little sick to my stomach every time I hear you spew those party-line, rehearsed talking points and phrases. You're a hypocrite, Mr. Watts... and what makes you a hypocrite... is... that you don't believe a word you're saying. You're a minah bird... a dumb animal who doesn't talk... it mimicks what it hears. Sad!

Michael Volpe wrote on September 24, 2007 09:54 AM: To Mr. Roker,

you are just plain wrong if you don't think there is any benefit to victory and also as important terrible consequence to defeat. Having a democracy, which can happen, in the Middle East is the only viable way to win the GWOT in the long term. The only way that terrorism can be rejected is by the people tasting a society that finds no use in it. That won't happen with non stop despotic regimes. Obviously our government underestimated the monumental task of transforming these societies but that does not mean that their overall goal was wrong, or that our current strategy is a bad one.

If we leave, we leave IRaq to Al Qaeda, Syria and Iran, and how exactly does that do anything to help us. No matter how long it takes, that must never happen.

Arturo Hartnack wrote on September 24, 2007 04:06 AM: Shouldn't Mr. Petraeus be tried for lying to Congress?

steve wrote on September 24, 2007 12:21 AM: Thank you Mr. Watts for stating what needed to be said. The anti-war Democrats have acted like petulant, immature children.

I remember Steny Hoyer walking out of the state of the union in January, stepping in front of the first camera he saw and stating "I heard nothing new". This was after Bush had announced a troop increase, a new strategy, and new rules of engagement sanctioned by the Iraqi government. I was stunned that someone could play politics so recklessly with the world's security like that.

I listened to what Bush said. It had made sense to me.

Now, 9 months later Steny and his cohorts are unmasked as nothing more than partisan saboteurs.

Lincoln had to go through half a dozen generals before he found his winning combination. There is no such thing as planning for the next war as Hillary says she will. That's like planning for the next injury your quarterback will have. Absurd.

Petreaus has now building a kinetic/non kinetic force like the world has never seen. We are witnessing a revolution in military theory and practice. The lessons learned here will allow us to step in and salvage failing states elsewhere with greater efficiency. The world is watching. We cannot fail this test.

M.S. McNeil wrote on September 23, 2007 05:45 PM: How many years did Bush ignore calls to reinforce Iraq and employ appropriate counter-insurgency tactics?

For that matter, how long before he even conceded there was an insurgency?

What changed Bush's mind about reinforcements and tactical doctrine? Military necessity? No, elections that turned out poorly for him.

Rumor has it Bush stops trying what he had to dragged kicking and screaming into try no later than May.

No more men. Or, at least, no more men he has the political courage to send to Iraq.

So forgive our cynicism. Whatever Bush has in Iraq when he leaves office will be victory as far as he's concerned.

Mike wrote on September 23, 2007 02:55 PM: It's ridiculous to keep framing the debate about this "war" in terms of victory and defeat. The declared enemy is not Iraq, it's violent extremism. You can't defeat terror with violence. You just can't.

When will we be able to say that we've achieved victory? The "pro-war" camp says that victory will be ours when there is relative peace, or when the Iraqi military is strong enough to take our place. But it's obvious that those goals are impossible to achieve until after we -the occupying force- leave that sovereign nation that we have illegally attacked.

Anywhere from 75,000 to 700,000 non-combatant civilians have died in Iraq since 2003. With a populaton of 26.5 million . . . let's see . . . 2 million refugees have fled the country . . . 2 million more refugees inside their own country . . . that leaves somewhere around 22 million potential insurgents left to be dealt with. How many years will it take to "win" that battle?

War is not the answer.

patte wrote on September 23, 2007 01:53 PM: Hey Willard, where would you like our troops to be while Iran is building nukes and threatening everyone? Here in the US, in Germany or South Korea
or the Phillipines? Or next door in Iraq?
We went to Iraq to establish a base of troops to keep the terrorists over there instead of over here. Sadam was
a proven terrorist generator as he boldly offered to pay $25,000 to any family whose kid would become a human bomb and take out some Jews. He thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and the entire WORLD agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction. I still believe they were moved or buried.
When a gang of thugs moves into the neighborhood intent on taking over do we let them???? No, we take them out.
YOU CAN'T GET RID OF THEM HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE OVER THERE. GET IT????
I can sympathize with the enormous tax revenues and Americans reluctence to continue to fund a war to help a bunch of fanactic idiots. But there are also
a lot of reasons to protect our country by going on the offensive.
There is no draft at this point. These people have volunteered to risk their lives to protect our country.
We can win if idiots like you quit being such whimps and whining all the time.
Oh and by the way, if we lose this war
you can see the oil going to $10 a gallon or more because the whiners won't allow any more oil to be drilled and refined in this country. That is a prescription for disaster and you can blame yourself for that.

willard roker wrote on September 23, 2007 09:11 AM: The Bush administration and JC Watts think "A new Strategy" is redefining the term victory. It is not. There was no just reason for invading Iraq there can be no just end. The American people have nothing to gain from our continued involvement in Iraq... Unless of course they are a "Private Contractor" or an Oil Company.