John wrote on Jan 16, 2007 5:57 AM:Yes... but it should be 200 thousand.No half measures.

Laid back surfer wrote on Jan 17, 2007 4:05 PM:Probably not in the long run. For example, we did some pretty darn good things in Afganistan. But today we hear that once again we need more troops in Afganistan. My suggestion is that we end the war on drugs so that we cut off the money supply to these terrorists. During the summer Lebanese war, we learned how Hamas gets their money from the drug trade. In Afganistan we know that the terrorists get there money from the drug trade. This is from a newsweek article from a few months ago:“NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a day—good money in Afghanistan and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive. It's a bad sign, too, that a shortage of local police has led Karzai to approve a plan allowing local warlords—often traffickers themselves—to rebuild their private armies. U.N. officials have spent the past three years trying to disband Afghanistan's irregular militias, which are accused of widespread human-rights abuses. Now the warlords can rearm with the government's blessing. Afghanistan is "unfortunately well on its way" to becoming a "narco-state," NATO's supreme commander, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, said before Congress last week. Let's end the insane war on drugs so we can win the war on terror!

Eric wrote on Jan 17, 2007 8:08 PM:All the far left whackos will always for Bush to fail, and if Hillary Clinton gets in the way of progess she should be held for treason. The far left don't have a plan at all and should get one or shut up!!!

Right on Rhett wrote on Jan 17, 2007 8:13 PM:I think that anyone that thinks that we should pull out of Iraq without winning is crazy, the left need to come up with a real plan that involves winning and if they don't they will NEVER take control of the whitehouse again. We don't need any president thats clueless like Hilary Clinton.

Hoser wrote on Jan 27, 2007 8:15 PM:"We need to pull out of Iraq winners" just like we pulled out of Vietnam winners. I can't believe people actually believe the US should continue to fight this war. Bush is just like his father, he'll try anyting to make the conservatives happy just like daddy when he started desert storm. This is just another last ditch effort to win some votes for the conservatives for the next election.

GFN wrote on Jan 28, 2007 8:35 AM:Here's your solution, Right on Rhett, letters, Jan 27: "We can leave Iraq now - honorably: It seems to me that there is an honorable way to end our involvement in Iraq. I believe that we have been, or are currently involved, in two wars in Iraq. The first war was to eliminate a source of WMDs, eliminate an evil dictator and to establish democracy in Iraq. Your choice. Whatever that war was, it is over. Bush can claim victory. There are no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam is dead, and a democratically elected government has been seated. The second war is a civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Our presence there -in the middle of that conflict - will only delay the inevitable resolution, and it will kill and maim more members of our armed forces (and consider also how the North would have felt about either England or France supporting the South in our own Civil War). We can withdraw from Iraq honorably, knowing that we did what we intended to do. Yes, we also let the civil war genie out of the bottle, but it is not our responsibility to put it back. That responsibility rests with the Iraqis. JOHN LYNN Carlsbad

What war? wrote on Feb 5, 2007 11:47 AM:We went to war with Saddam Hussein and his no-WMD, no-ties-to-Al-Qaeda, no-defenses-or-military...and we won. Since, we've been an occupying force, which is not a war. Winning is not an issue, nor is losing: it's not a war. Bush says that we stay until Iraq is a democratic ally against terror. In other words, we stay until a government is installed ("by the people") that we approve of ("our ally"). What this has to do with a war, I don't know. But if most Americans could get their heads out of Viet Nam for a few minutes, and admit that this hasn't been a war since Saddam fell, we'd find a way out much more easily.

Oldreporter wrote on Feb 7, 2007 5:26 PM:I have seen very little to suggest that a surge of 20,000 to 40,000 more troops will do much more than add more meat to the grinder. Our goal was to overthrow Saddam. That goal was achieved. Sadly about half the casualties have happened since Saddam was captured. Furthermore, it appears that out presence has become a destabilizing factor in the region while at the same time we've become a low level colonial power. Before I was a reporter I was a Marine. Today I volunteer at the local VA and in the background help as an IT angel. Everytime i see a wounded vet grimacing in rehab or struggling to make connections while recovering from a penetrating brain injury, I feel ashamed.I have nothing but immense respect for the service men and women in this county now shuttling back and forth to the Mid-East far more frequently than I think we --as tax payers/citizens have a right to ask of them. What scares the hell out of me is the continued mission creep of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. if I were an active duty service person I'd be more than a little annoyed with the current administration's assumption that because I was a "volunteer, I'd signed up for frequent combat tours."

Bob wrote on Feb 28, 2007 12:42 PM:This is like throwing good money after bad ...there's no more thought to howe to solve this mess than went into getting us into this mess in the first place. But rest assured Halliburton and all their ilk with no-bid contracts will continue to fleece the American Tax Payers' collective pocket books for the duration and long after. Meanwhile our kids "will come home in a box" and 10 times as many that do will come home irrevocably damaged. I would say we need a real plan ...but they'd probably just pay more consultants another few billion dollars to propose something that really only took 10 minuts of brain storming with business leaders to make sure it wouldn't adversely affect big business. ANd if it did, what kind of legislation they'd need to make sure CEO profits were increased to compensate for that. We are doomed as long as the wolf runs the chicken house.

Absolutely not !! wrote on Feb 28, 2007 12:47 PM:Any law requiring you to buy insurance is wrong. The pretense is well intensioned, but the reality is that this will be just another budget sapping initiative that will result in coverage that people can't use 'cuz they've spent their "disposable income" on the insurance premium, and they'll have no $$$ left to pay deductibles and co-pays. But hey... the stats will look good. Records will show 100% of people have health insurance and there will be no way for those stats to reflect that 25% of people can't afford to actually use their coverage. Which is right where we are today ...but with this plan the insuracen companies will make out like the bandits that they are !! Just say NO!!

bob wrote on Mar 7, 2007 9:50 PM:I feel that we should declare martial law in the middle east!!!The Enola Gay should be getting a valve-job, new pistons, rings, and the chamber should be increased to accomodate the circumference of the Nuke that will be required to re-establish order. Got any other ideas? My dad fought in the south pacific and saw the US marines floating in red-bloodied waves (photo recon)on the beach heads! After the bombs dropped, our men stopped dying!!!!

Surprised wrote on Mar 23, 2007 3:43 PM:Ok for those of you calling Clinton clueless. Please view the following link then comment on your intellignet choice. ...

too late wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:12 PM:We're about two months into the 6-month surge, and the generals are talking already about extending it into fall or beyond. Did someone say "escalation"? Surges are very temporary...

Reliable Bob wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:15 PM:There are always the Bobs, who think that nuking something creates order. Let's incinerate a few million innocents to get the couple of thousand insurgents. Great idea! But of course, unlike Japan, there is no nation here to surrender. If Japan in 1945 had been in a full-out insurgency, fighting for control of their own country, do you really think the two A-bombs would've ended it? We'd still be there as the attackers would appear and disappear, taking our entire economy down with it.

ashleigh wrote on Apr 13, 2007 2:38 PM:eric...when the hell was the last time you heard of progress in the war?!?!?! putting 20,000 more troops over there just means that 1/4 of them arent coming home. FOR NO GOOD REASON. lets save our soldiers lives and let them come home. whose going to protect us here when all of our troops have been depleted? and if you can honestly tell me and i say HONESTLY, looking deep deep down, that you think bush has done a good job then i would have to call you insane. Of course war is not easy and there are a lot of tough decisions to be made in that desperate time, but Bush has done absolutely NOTHING productive in this war. we have killed thousands of innocent in the middle east countries and thousands of our own. when is it enough?!?!?!?!?!?

Jayco wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:59 PM:Nice to see that all of you Jane Fonda Vietnam era non supporters are still out there. When you give the enemy information like when we are going to leave. Why should they stop their anti american attacks. Wake up before this whole country is speaking their language. Ask any Vietnam who is living here now this question. DID THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT LET THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE DOWN BY DESERTING THEM. YES I am a Vietnam veteran, and I know for a fact that still believe that we betrayed them

jayco wrote on Apr 24, 2007 12:03 AM:Just read another letter and had to comment. Yes Saddam did have weapons. How do I know I was in Army intel and we sold these weapons of mass destruction to his government, Stop kidding yourself Every think that Bush stated is true, Clinton stated the same, It is no secret now that we supplied Saddam the weapons to fight Iran.

to Jayco wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:40 AM:I hate to tell you this but the information about the WMDs is and has been widely known and was never secret or controversial. But to go from Saddam's having had WMDs in the 1980s to "Bush told us the truth" is a stretch, to say the least. Bush told us what they were and where they were. He told us about yellow cake. He told us about aluminum tubes. If Bush had simply said, "At one time, Saddam had these weapons, but that was before the Gulf War, before sanctions, before our regular bombing, before the inspectors, and we really don't know what is there now..." that would have been the truth. Sorry.

to jayco wrote on Apr 25, 2007 3:31 PM:How many other people have we let down by not invading and fighting and winning? Billions. If you assume that our job is to fight wars all over the place even when that place is not a threat to us, then it's not hard to predict that we will be letting a whole lotta people down. To say that we should have stayed in Viet Nam so as not to let them down makes only a little more sense than saying we let down the Tibetans for not fighting the Chinese there, etc etc etc. When we fight a war that is not just, if it ain't over in about a week, the American people will surely and understandably sicken of it, ask "what for?", and pressure our leaders to leave. How in the world could it be otherwise? We aren't stupid! I wish our leaders understood this, finally, so they'd stop writing checks to others that they can't cash, and when they tell the American people it'll only take a week, they better be darn sure about it. It's shameful.

Mike wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:32 PM:To leave now would plunge Iraq into civil war which would benefit no one.

Jerry G wrote on May 15, 2007 6:19 PM:Not enough soldiers/Marines and they were sent way to late. Should have sent 500,000 in the opening of the war. A totally botched effort...by a totally ignorant bunch of arrogant politicians.

Stay at home wrote on Jul 8, 2007 1:52 AM:Please let the troops fight here at home: war against drugs, illegals (sorry, I know someone will say 'oh the racist' slant)....the war against poverty, identity theft, child abuse, homeless, disabled, illiterate, DSM diagnosed, birth defects, blindness, and hopefully character education for all, so we don't end up with politicians who can't speak or write a complete sentence that makes sense. A new generation of 'disabled' are returning from the Middle East and many aren't even coming home.

Rosie O' wrote on Aug 13, 2007 3:13 AM:People people, I'm on T.V, I know politics. The terrorism is FAKE, its been the government this entire time. Cant you see sending more troops to die is only going to make me fatter?

sad wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:54 AM:It really doesn't seem to matter what the American citizen thinks anymore, weather its the war, illegal immigration, or Mexican trucking. Citizens are not being represented, they are being directed. Vote (by learning the facts) or shut up!

Doesn't matter wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:49 PM:It really doesn't matter what we think because The President will do what he wants. As far as the troop buildup goes. I know it won't work, why? Because I was there from March 2003 to July 2004 and I keep updated on the situation. I don't get ignorant or distracted from false reports from the government about how it is working because I know what is going on. If you want to end the war either A)Pull out or B)Commit to genocide and let god sort them out. We need help within our borders more than ever before with drug problems, immigration problems, and gang problems. Nobody can fix that region, not even the indigenous people who live there. The fact is that when the Arabs aren't killing Jews, they are killing each other and by drawing attention to ourselves, we take our place within the ring of endless conflict. We can't police the world by ourselves, we need to have a stronger backing and any country who has tried otherwise in the past has failed. Like France in Vietnam and us in Vietnam and Korea and hell even Britain in 1776. The fact is that policing the world is just as stupid as trying to conquer the world. Go ahead, trade and have foreign relations but mind your own business and stay at home. (unless of course a war is necessary in which case i mean necessary as in you will have many countries willing to go with you, such as a world war and not some politician's wet dream)

Edmund wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:54 PM:We invaded Iraq because of Oil and Israel. We have now, by some credible foreign estimates, murdered some 1 MILLION or more Iraqi citizens for a WMD program which did not exist, for ties to Al-Qaeda which did not exist, for "regime change" which has occured the moment the former leader was captured (and then quickly executed so as not to reveal too many uncomfortable details about Bush One involvement in his military buildup!). How does one "win" an occupation? We invaded on spurious pretexts and we now occupy as authoritarian dictators. In the meantime, two weeks ago Israel attacked Syria in a bombing raid, an act of war, one which most of you have probably not heard about, and then the following week went on to murder three Palestinian children, two 10 years old and one 12 year old, who were playing tag when shot dead by gun-happy Jewish soldiers. These are provocative acts of aggression which the US media ignore or downplay. What are we winning in Iraq? Certainly not the hearts and minds of the Arab people.

WhoWhat wrote on Nov 16, 2007 5:43 PM:Thanks NCT for leaving this blog up, it shows how childishly simple the DEMlibs and their lose at any cost ideology are. It is proven that the surge is working but they still cannot accept it as they are blind deaf and dumb. And impervious to any logical debate.

Alfonso wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:01 PM:So, as of today, the SURGE is working perfectly. 60% of these respondants believed it would not work. It proves that misinformation to the masses can be affect opinion. Just read some of the harsh accusations about the surge by some of the previous "experts" on the subject. Sometimes being "right" doesn't mean "follow the crowd".

To Absolutley Not- wrote on Dec 17, 2007 9:30 PM:Oh so we should be a Soccialist state and give everyone free medical care? No way, I already pay for you losers to get free medical care with my taxes.

To Edmund wrote on Dec 17, 2007 9:35 PM:How much oil are we getting from Iraq? Last time I checked we get more from Mexico. If we were there for only the oil we would have taked the fields and pumped it all out. Where did you get the figure 1 mil Iraqis? Who cares, anyway more died before we got there. They could get rid of Saddam so we did. This is nothing like the French in Vietnam...for so many reasons. One the military there in Iraq actually knows how to fight. You are ignorant to the true facts.

Jacqueline wrote on Dec 21, 2007 2:12 PM:I was so very against the United States going into Iraq!! I felt it in my bones that it was a gross mistake!!! Why can't our wonderful country stay out of war??? Are we trying to kill off all our men & women in uniform? Surely, we must have "watchdogs" in case of an emergency, but that's what watchdogs do! IE: WATCH!!!

macs wrote... wrote on Dec 27, 2007 7:01 PM:There are not enough medical hospitals and support step down care facilities within this country to support the physical injuries and trauma soldiers coming home. Now to find out they are not receiving medical care once turned out?!
This is "worse" than the troops still being in Korea 60 years later!@!!!!

ILenin wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:15 PM:Fools rush in without a plan and now they can not get out without looking like the fools we are. As soon as we get out Iran will take over so we are stuck for the next 100 years and by the way it will bankrupt this country just as it did the Soviet Union in Afghanistan! I hear these people love to die so they can go to paradise, thus they have a never ending supply of willing combatants. Can we top this? If we want to fight forever we are in the right place and what are we getting?

cold warrior wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:50 AM:Islam is a greater threat than communism ever was. European civilization appears doomed. We have little choice but to maintain a presence in the Middle East. Simply put, it is a power struggle. Surrendering our gains there would be a disaster.