I found, and linked to, three articles that explained (supported?) my position, and that didn’t satisfy you.

The above quote apparently meant nothing to you.

What do you want, brain surgery? A Vulcan mind meld?

I thought I made it clear that you could believe whatever you choose.

How many entries did it take for you to stop telling me that I was saying that I wasn’t saying? 4?

How many entries do you think will change your mind? 400?

Not from me…

So the question we keep asking Frank, that you don’t seem to think is relevant is, what can we expect 20,000 more troops to achieve? Also, why should we believe this anything other than a political move rather than a solution? Six months from now Iraq will be no better.

PAM HESS, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL: I think it’s gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn’t that big — isn’t that big a jump. We’re at 132,000 right now. It’s going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we’re not asking is actually the central question. We’re getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight.

What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

CNN’s Reliable Sources

It’s so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It’s on the cover of “The New York Times” today, what this means for the ’08 election. But we’re not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you’re carrying Bush’s water. There are national security questions at stake, and we’re ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

Liar

Still no respect for the National Guard. Wash trucks huh?

Liar

(I will no longer pretend you are mistaken)

Incidentally, if you are among those who suggest that we follow the recommendations of the ISG, you might want to read this:

Read this grim forecast from the recent report of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton:”If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world. Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people…. Iraq’s security forces could split along sectarian lines. A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy….

“Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests, thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.

“Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections — perhaps fomented by Iran — in Sunni-ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora’s box of problems — including the radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes — that might take decades to play out.

“If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.

“Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, `Al-Qaida is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald’s.’ Left unchecked, al-Qaida in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.

Al-Qaida’s aspirations

“Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al-Qaida: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread `the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.’ A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country,” the report said.

Still no respect for the National Guard. Wash trucks huh?

Think they signed up for years of active duty?

As for reconstruction money, show us something we got for all that money we flushed in Iraq. Some now bulletridden painted schools. Spotty utilities. Bulging pockets for American contractors. The way the money was flushed showed alack or care or respect for the Iraqis so don’t start. Foreign contractors, foreign labor in a country with massive unemployment. Get real Frank.

Face facts, Bush gambled on an easy in and out invasion where the ease of victory would cover the political liabilites. If it had been successful he would have won big. Instead every strategy has been designed to delay the consequences. This surge is just to buy more time.

You still seem to have no respect for the National guard. Wash cars?
I said trucks.
Ever see a National Guard outfit in action? There’s one a few miles from me. You know what they do on weekends (their “active duty” obligation)?
They wash trucks. I’m not making it up. What is your problem?
Do you want to say you think they’re tired? Then say that. Do you want to say they can’t wait to come out, whether or not the job is finished? It’s a lie, but go ahead. Just don’t put words in my mouth.
As for the reconstruction money, first the liberals say, “They’re not fighting terrorists, they’re painting schoolhouses.”
Now, they’re not even doing that!
Jeeebus, lefties! Spit it out! Tell the truth!
C’mon, you can do it!
“We don’t care about the Iraqis”
“We continue to say that we want to fight terrorism, but we can’t think of any anti-terrorist activities we want to engage in. We can’t even identify the Islamic terrorists as Islamic.”
And my favorite:”We support the troops, but we don’t support any of their efforts or goals. In fact, we don’t even want them to finish doing what they think is right.”

C’mon, admit it…

Confession is good for the soul.

You still seem to have no respect for the National guard. Wash cars? The pentagon has lifted the 2 year active duty limit.

Bush wasted the reconstruction money. No accounting, little results.

How are we winning in Iraq? We have created a recruiting, financing, and supply center for terrorists. We have made a buffer state for Iran.

Google US military readiness and read all the articles, studies and quotes you want.

I’m not getting into a fisking contest with you.

But, one more time.
Let’s look at your statements:

1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place …

I disagree.

2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard.

Why? Because they won’t be doing anything when they get home?
What were they doing before Iraq? Washing trucks. Who said I had a low opinion of the NG?

3. Our military is falling apart.
You have no information to that effect. You’re just parroting the uninformed. Read a little DefenseTECH, or DefenseLINK,of GlobalSecurity.org

4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?
This makes no sense. Who said it was wasted, specifically by Bush?

5. Protecting the homeland. (By bringing our troops home. Sort of like taking policemen out of Patrol cars to male arresting crooks more efficient)

Catching terrorists. I’d rather kill them somewhere else than capture them here, hoping we can catch them before they blow themselves, and 3,000 other people, up.

Funding efforts.
Huh?

Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts.
So you’re saying that when we stop killing terrorists we’ll regain the trust of the International community?
You really mean Germany, France and Russia, don’t you?
We had, and have, plenty of help. We don’t need them, and they didn’t (and probably still don’t or won’t) want to help us anytime soon.

Having our army ready to respond to real threat.
Having our first responders home.
We don’t need our first responders home, if we’re not getting attacked here (doesn’t this conflict with the first thing on your list — we need to fight terrorism at home.)

6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman. Yes, he mindlessly hates Bush and opposes the War, too.

7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.

What if it was going to cost us 1,000 lives somewhere else, and $100 Billion somewhere else? Then what would you say?

8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.
I see, the terrorists are not sneaking over the sieve – like borders of Iran and Syria. They are all pissed – off Iraqis, who after they are killed, are replaced by their pissed – off relatives. The facts contradict you.

9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.
So? We either get that cooperation, or we don’t. Do you seriously believe there are no diplomatic efforts, with high level State Department officials traveling
all over the world (Condoleezza Rice seems never to unpack), and sn endless stream of foreign visitors to the White House?
Again, you’re thinking of Germany, Russia and France. In technical, diplomatic terms: Fuck. Them.

10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?
What’s happening in Iraq is more like winning than losing — you just see a half full glass as bone dry

I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.

You can say it one more time or a hundred times — you are wrong. I never said oil entered into it, and I never said killing Arabs entered into it, especially since Iraqis aren’t even Arabs.
I said I would accept “Empire” in the fashion I qualified it above.

You can continue to misrepresent me, if you choose . But then, I will not respond at all. So keep your typing to a minimum; you may be wasting your time.

I’m not getting into a fisking contest with you.

But, one more time.
Let’s look at your statements:

1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place …

I disagree.

2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard.

Why? Because they won’t be doing anything when they get home?
What were they doing before Iraq? Washing trucks. Who said I had a low opinion of the NG?

3. Our military is falling apart.
You have no information to that effect. You’re just parroting the uninformed. Read a little DefenseTECH, or DefenseLINK,of GlobalSecurity.org

4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?
This makes no sense. Who said it was wasted, specifically by Bush?

5. Protecting the homeland. (By bringing our troops home. Sort of like taking policemen out of Patrol cars to male arresting crooks more efficient)

Catching terrorists. I’d rather kill them somewhere else than capture them here, hoping we can catch them before they blow themselves, and 3,000 other people, up.

Funding efforts.
Huh?

Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts.
So you’re saying that when we stop killing terrorists we’ll regain the trust of the International community?
You really mean Germany, France and Russia, don’t you?
We had, and have, plenty of help. We don’t need them, and they didn’t (and probably still don’t or won’t) want to help us anytime soon.

Having our army ready to respond to real threat.
Having our first responders home.
We don’t need our first responders home, if we’re not getting attacked here (doesn’t this conflict with the first thing on your list — we need to fight terrorism at home.)

6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman. Yes, he mindlessly hates Bush and opposes the War, too.

7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.

What if it was going to cost us 1,000 lives somewhere else, and $100 Billion somewhere else? Then what would you say?

8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.
I see, the terrorists are not sneaking over the sieve – like borders of Iran and Syria. They are all pissed – off Iraqis, who after they are killed, are replaced by their pissed – off relatives. The facts contradict you.

9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.
So? We either get that cooperation, or we don’t. Do you seriously believe there are no diplomatic efforts, with high level State Department officials traveling
all over the world (Condoleezza Rice seems never to unpack), and sn endless stream of foreign visitors to the White House?
Again, you’re thinking of Germany, Russia and France. In technical, diplomatic terms: Fuck. Them.

10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?
What’s happening in Iraq is more like winning than losing — you just see a half full glass as bone dry

I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.

You can say it one more time or a hundred times — you are wrong. I never said oil entered into it, and I never said killing Arabs entered into it, especially since Iraqis aren’t even Arabs.
I said I would accept “Empire” in the fashion I qualified it above.

You can continue to misrepresent me, if you choose . But then, I will not respond at all. So keep your typing to a minimum; you may be wasting your time.

1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place and our soldiers are dying because of Bush’s decision to invade and Bush’s fuckups in strategy. Iraq was not a front in the war on terrorism.

2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard. They’ve been there long enough. Changing the policy to lengthen that time is just bad.

3. Our military is falling apart. Many units aren’t in a state of readiness and many units don’t have equipment because its in Iraq.

4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?

5. Protecting the homeland. Catching terrorists. Funding efforts. Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts. Having our army ready to respond to real threat. Having our first responders home

6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman.

7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.

8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.

9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.

10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?

I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.

But not much else.

You still haven’t.

Now,that’s tiresome!

“You see, it’s not as easy as you pretend it is. This war on terror is turning out to be a bitch on wheels …”

You’re fucking tiresome, DiSalle. There was a time you wouldn’t admit an iota of what you’ve expressed above and would spew insults and expletives at anyone who suggested it was reality.