This election is going to be decided primarily on the war in Iraq. It seems most Americans are either fed up, angry, or just want the whole mess to go away. It won't go away, it is a mess and all the Republican pundits in the world aren't going to sell this endless civil war. The President, Vice-President, Republican candidates, Congress people, Senators can't sell the endless dead and wounded. They can't even sell it to the military and then they call the soldiers phony. The response to Rush has come from the field

Apparently anyone in the military is above criticism as long as they agree with Rush's brave belief that we should be in Iraq "as long as it takes." And I use the term 'we' loosely, as I believe the closest Rush has ever gotten to combat was watching We Were Soldiers with surround sound.

Please link to this blog because the pictures and captions are very good. What is not being taken into account in this war is the military viewpoint. There are a number of retired generals who have spoken out, many who lead our troops in Iraq. There are large numbers of soldiers serving in Iraq who are speaking out. These are brave, honorable soldiers serving their country, doing the best they can, being labeled as phony. Don't take my word for it, but take theirs.

Enough is enough. Those who want our youth to fight their war should not be labeling those they send as phony (especially when they got a deferment for ingrown hair-really that's what Rush did). We can and must get out of Iraq even if it takes a year. Start somewhere.

Rep. John Murtha is really beginning to rue the day he made disparaging remarks about marines involved in the Haditha Incident where Iraqis in a home were killed. Murtha had called the actions of the marines "cold blooded murder" although the facts of the incident were not known at the time. Murtha had stated that the people killed were innocent Iraqi civilians but, again, the complete facts of the incident are not completely known.

One of the marines whom Murtha referenced as a killer, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has filed a defamation of character suit against Murtha. Murtha sought to have the case dismissed, but according to the AP the judge, Rosemary M. Collyer, has refused request.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Murtha will now be required to make a deposition in the case.

According to the article, Murtha's primary purpose was to draw attention to the pressure the troops in were under and to show that there were efforts to cover up the incident. What Murtha failed to take into consideration was the fact that the case had not been tried and all the facts had not surfaced. By jumping the proverbial gun, Murtha stated untrue allegations about the marines and did so on television. Ultimately, the charges were outright dismissed against several of the marines.

The decision of the judge not to dismiss the case comes on the heels of Murtha's embarrassing performance when a college student cornered the congressmen and asked him point blank and asked him if he would retract his statements. Murtha responded that the trial was not over yet.

More details are emerging from the investigation into Blackwater's role in the deaths of over 20 civilians in Iraq on September 16. According to the New York Times, American investigators have learned that the incident began when a bomb went off near a meeting of U.S. officials. What followed was a chaotic, poorly managed evacuation, in which Blackwater employees fired upon anything in their path. That included a woman and her infant, who were among those killed.

As many commentators have noted, one disturbing thing about farming out security in a war is the lack of accountability that private companies face. Witness the follow-through on recent threats by the Iraqi government to kick Blackwater out of Iraq. Outsourcing war, while filling in troop gaps, has disturbing consequences.

On the surface, it would seem that the firms and the U.S. military would be working toward the same end: to secure the country. Yet, as we've seen with Halliburton, these private companies are not beyond overcharging and fraud. And, as Robert Gates pointed out earlier this week, we have big problem with losing highly trained soldiers to companies like Blackwater. Why? Money.

Yes, the war is a huge windfall to select group of private companies. When it comes to loyalty, our military is a direct representation of the United States government, yet private security firms work for the highest bidder. That may mean a Sunni sheik one day, and a resurgent Shia politician the next. By every Pentagon calculation, the longer the war drags on, the fewer troops we'll be able to rotate into the country. Therefore, we will become increasingly reliant on contractors like Blackwater in the coming year. That means, of course, that those companies stand to make a lot more money from a protracted war. What was that Doobie Brothers refrain? "Old black water, keep on rollin."

It's hard to quibble with the Clinton's assertion. Still, even though he is right, the MoveOn ad was lame. Decide for yourself.

While news regarding Israel's successful air raid in Syria remains somewhat murky (it is widely believed that the bombing served the purpose of destroying nuclear material that had been acquired by North Korea), it has recently come to light that on July 23, 15 Syrians and several dozen Iranians were killed in a explosion involving a disastrous chemical weapons experiment.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the accident occurred when a warhead containing chemical weapons materials was being mounted on a SCUD missile. This, of course, raises a number of questions regarding the recent allegations of North Korea allegedly supplying Syria with nuclear material. If the allegations are true, was Syria in the process of acquiring a nuclear warhead or material that could be used to construct a "dirty bomb" of radio active material?

This disaster shows a clear collaboration between Iran and Syria regarding a weapons of mass destruction program that, in light of Iran's current nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East to escalating even further. It is no secret that Dick Cheney has been pushing President Bush for military action in Iran and incidents like this do not exactly calm anyone's nerves about Iran and Syria's threat to U.S. troops or allies.

Once again, the Uniters, those comic book hero characters in their own minds, have done it again. They've united the generals against a war with Iran. It seems fairly common now that a general retires and soon after starts speaking out against the Iraq debacle or the pending Iran fiasco. This time it's Gen. John Abizaid who most recently was the Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years. He said:

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He went on to say there is basis for hope in dealing diplomatically with Iran and that Iran recognizes that it cannot compete with the US's arsenal. He took a shot at the White House and reminded his audience that war is only a very last resort. Even while Cheney is trying to goad the Iranians into war, it's becoming clear there is little stomach for yet another war at the Pentagon. There will always be those who fear any other nation who might, possibly, some day in the future, threaten our vaunted superiority but it isn't Iran. Their attempt to build a bomb may well be a self defense mechanism. Our nation has been undercut but not by them or North Korea but by the Uniters.

Our military is hurt and way overextended. They squandered every resource and world opinion is we are allowing ourselves to be led by incompetents. The definition of kakistocracy is : Government by the least able and most unprincipled. That's what we have all right. Thank you General for joining many recent retired military in speaking the truth.

While it would seem that 2006 was the year that everything went wrong in Iraq, it would appear that 2007 will be the year that the tide has turned significantly for the better. In further developments of progress in the region, the AP is reporting that the Shiite sheiks in the southern part of Iraq are showing an interest in forming an alliance with US troops in order to combat extremists and insurgents. This would be similar to the alliance between the military and the Sunnis in western Iraq where such an alliance has delivered a tremendous blow to al-Qaida forces as well as aided significantly in lowering violence levels.

An alliance with the Shiite Sheiks would provide solid re-enforcements for the military in curbing the violence in the Shiite areas. Additionally, it can free up American personnel to move towards the Iranian border where it can curb smuggling and illegal entries of extremist/insurgent re-enforcements.

While there is much blame to go around for the initial failures in Iraq, it is clear that Donald Rumsfeld's leadership and strategy was lacking to say the least. With the new leadership present in the form of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General Petraeus, Iraq is turning around significantly. The region is becoming more and more stabilized with of the locals are turning on al-Qaida. While total success is far from a given, it is clear that success is achievable. Additionally, with less 'bad news' coming out of Iraq, options for de-funding the war become less and less probable. Considering that Democrats could not tabulate enough votes for withdrawal in the early part of 2007, to muster enough votes now with all the progress that is being made would be even more unlikely.

In what may prove to be good news for soldiers who have been on the battlefield for a long time coming, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced it would not be out of the possibility to reduce troop numbers down to about 100,000 by summer of 2008. (The figure is far below what President Bush had predicted to be possible and Gate's notion of possible troop reductions is not an official plan of action) Such significant troop reductions also, of course, would signal that the mission is Iraq is proving successful as there is less need for 160,000 troops to keep the nation stabilized. Let it be known, however, that Gates has also mentioned that the situation in Iraq could always change for the worse and this would negatively impact his troop reduction optimism.

Democrats in the Senate, however, have still claim that the mission in Iraq is failing and reiterated many of the same points they have already made in the past. Per the AP:

"As hard as they may have tried to spin it, today's assessment by the White House on the political situation in Iraq once again shows that the president's flawed escalation policy is not working," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "It certainly does not justify keeping 130,000 soldiers mired in an open-ended civil war as the president has chosen to do."

But does the public believe this in light of General David Petraeus' testimony regarding the mission in Iraq being a success?

Also, the gradual troop cuts could prove beneficial to the GOP as it may release voter anxiety in districts where support for the war is wavering. While this is difficult to say how much gradual troop cuts will help is difficult to say. It can be safely assumed that as long as the violence in Iraq stays down, American casualties stay down and incremental troop reductions occur, voter anxiety may quell somewhat.

It's happened again. Another foot, another mouth. This time it's Rep. John Boehner, the lead Republican in the House. What did he say? The death of thousands and wounding of tens of thousands was 'a small price to pay'. Seriously.

BLITZER: "Mr. Leader, here is the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure, the loss and blood the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?"

A small price. Tell it to the families. Even other Republicans are not backing him. John McCain said:

With all due respect, every American wounded or sacrificed is the greatest possible price to pay,"

And of course Democrats seized on Boehner's very poorly chosen words. Rather than apologize, Boehner's office said he was talking about the money but the question was how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?" And now, we're supposed to accept the sacrifice of thousands more. A small price indeed.

MoveOn.org, the formerly extreme, now mainstream organization published a despicable ad calling General Petraeus General "Betray-us" and generally demeaned the man and his command.

Petraeus has always been a great soldier and a stright-shooter and a soldiers soldier. Anyone who has read anything about his career knows that he has excelled at every commend he has held and unbeknownst to the military-hating Moveon crowd, not just anyone can become a four-star general. It takes intense training for years, incredible amounts of education and a small bit of luck. Petraeus holds a Masters in Public Administration and a PhD in International Relations. I would suspect that neithet Pinch Sulzberger or any of the leadership at MoveOn has even remotely the experience, education or credentials that General Petraeus has. Then man is also highly decorated, in fact, Petraeus is the best Commanding General we've had since maybe Omar Bradley.

The New York Times is complicit in the smear of Petraeus by not only running the vile ad but running it at nearly a 50% discount in the first section of the paper on the day the General briefed Congress. The Times ran an ad defending the President's policies and supporting our troops paid for by Freedoms Watch, which was made to pay much more for the same type ad.

In essence, the NY Times is shilling for an organization that smears our troops, their leader and America and doing it for pennie on the dollar. This should put to rest any argument about media bias.

The General handled it with the class a military officer should:

Petraeus called portions of MoveOn.org's ad "flat, completely wrong" and the rest "at least more than arguable."

Note he was not shrill or defensive because he has much more pressing matters--such as winning a war--to worry about than a whiny, solipsistic collection of communist hacks who are hastening the steady decline of a once-great newspaper. Enjoy falling behind the Newark Star-Ledger in readership Pinch.

In yet another sign the Bush/Petraeus report does not represent the best in military thinking, there's another Pentagon report. It does not share the Administration's view that adding two and taking away two equals any reduction or progress at all. According to Newsweek:

a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will "differ substantially" from Petraeus's recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will "recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there." The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. "There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views" to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

Admiral Fallon is hardly a wallflower and has been, until now, a supporter of the Republican war. Maybe the prospect of another thousand dead soldiers, thousands maimed & wounded and $200 billion dollars to buy another year in hell and end up right where we have been for the last four years was enough to turn his stomach. There's only so much we can take, you know. The majority of the American people and now many in our military are saying enough is enough. What will it take to convince the lawmakers to pull the plug? Remember, any withdrawal will take at least a year. If we still have 130,000 troops plus an equal number of contractors next summer and we're still losing 5-10 troops a day, Democrats will be swept into office in droves but only if they take an oath to end the worse foreign policy blunder ever.

The public has had it with this war. From "Mission Accomplished" to "Bring It On" through "Last Throes" to just 6, 12, 18 and back to 6 or maybe 12 months before we even begin to exit, the public, the rank-and-file military, many officers but especially the voters have had it. Even congressional Republicans have had it and are breaking with Bush. Here's a snippet about Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y.:

"Things have not changed substantially in Iraq," Walsh said after returning to Washington Monday. "It's a very, very dangerous place, if not the most dangerous place on Earth. Governance is a serious issue. They are stumbling toward democracy." [...] "What occurred to me while I was in Iraq is that it's time," Walsh said. "We've done enough. No country has done more than we have for Iraq. The question I kept coming up with is how much do we have to give Iraq to make things work? I think we have given enough."

We have given enough. If a Republican can tell the difference between killing more soldiers and bringing them home, then the Democrats should stand and say, "Enough." Just today on the radio I heard the Iraqi defense minister say his forces could handle 80% of the load right now.

Fine. Good Enough. Let them do it, it's the only way to get our guys out. Even if we started tomorrow it would take at least 12 months to do an organized withdrawal to the perimeter. More Republicans will break with Bush and we know he's just trying to run the clock out and hand this mess to anyone else. Meantime we lose more troops, meantime we lose more credibility, meantime it becomes a bigger mess. Thanks Mr. Walsh, you only won by 3,000 votes last time but you may have saved your seat with today's statement.

Today I want to take a moment and honor those who are serving in harm's way, even though they should be home and even if our so-called government is playing with their lives and prolonging their torture. They should not have been sent, they should be home where their families and the country needs them. My friend's sons and my good neighbor's grandkids should be home today. But they aren't and while they are there, they need help. There are also tens of thousands wounded already home. Over 33% have brain injuries, PTSD and more.

There are a growing number of ways to support the troops. Here are a few. Please add your favorites in the comments:

Freedom Calls Foundation – helping troops stay in touch with their families.

The Wounded Warrior Project – providing programs and services for wounded veterans.

anysoldier.com – an amazing service that sends letters and packages to military contacts in Iraq who pass them on where needed. Check out the other branch-specific sites as well:

Marines
Navy
Air Force
Coast Guard

Operation Helmet – making our troops safer by supplying them with helmet upgrades.

Fisher House – providing homes to family members to be close to a veteran loved one during hospitalization or treatment. Frequent fliers can donate their miles here.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America - this is the largest group dedicated to the troops and veterans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More on the flip>>>

It would seem that the Democrats will be launching a series of "pre-emptive" strikes prior to General David Petraeus' report on the progress of the Iraq war. The International Herald Tribune has pointed out that a number of top Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joe Biden have reached out to the media to dispute the report.

Such a strategy looks like it will backfire on the Democrats considering that a recent CBSNYT's poll shows that the public holds its faith in the military command and neither congress nor the president in terms of who knows how to run the war. Attacking Petraeus could prove disastrous for the Democrats and should be avoided at all costs. If the Democrats start to push a hard anti-military attitude, they will be in DEEP trouble with the public which can accept anti-war, but NOT anti-military posturing.

Will Petraeus become the modern day version of Gen. MacArthur or Gen. Eisenhower? Perhaps. He will be appearing in an exclusive interview with Brit Hume on Fox News right after his report to congress in what is about as hard of a slap in the face to the mainstream media and the left wing establishment as he could muster. If Petraeus' comes off a media darling after his interview, the war will take a unique dynamic as the public will have a new hero to rally behind.

"This call shows the tables may have turned."

This quote is by an unnamed Republican source in a recent article by the Politico that claims that the anti-war factions that have been pushing the Democrats to end the war in Iraq are losing ground. The "call" in the quote refers to a conference call between Democratic representatives and several left leaning anti-war groups such as Code Pink and Progressive Democrats of America.

The article goes on to mention Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, has posted the transcript Friday on the website of the Network of Spiritual Progressives and it also mentions that Lerner had some harsh commentary about the conference call.

What was Lerner's commentary after the conference call? That the Democrats are representing "pure cowardice" (his words) in terms of their attempts to end the war; in other words, they are not going to end the war any time soon.