The next one will be better, and so on...practice, practice, practice.
More leftist spin.
The "insurgency" is a product of Syria and Iran and our own antiwar movement.
After we defeat Hussein's regime, Syria and Iran were indeed shocked and awed.
The left's incessant attacks upon the president began to have a political toll, though, and Syria and Iran saw an opening. Iran had spent years building up a network inside Iraq. Syria decided to renew its old ties with the Iraqi Baathist movement.
And so it started, men, money, supplies, and leadership flowed into Iraq.
The most obvious answer was to respond with military force. But one media generated scandel after another continued to sap Bush's political strength. Bush could not enforce the Bush doctrine, and this was, and is, as obvious to our enemies as it is to us.
The insurgency, or more accurately Iran and Syria, are now making a major push to win the war. This doesn't mean either hope to defeat our forces militarily, they can't, but they fervently believe that if they can kill enough Americans to get Kerry elected president they will indeed have won. There is little reason to doubt their take on this either.
The anti-war movement in America, and the Democrat Party and mainstream media it has co-opted, has blood on its hands.
Wouldn't 450,000 troops in Irag mean 450% more targets?
Interesting article -
I've been wondering if the Iraq plan all along wasn't to melt into the population to fight another day - knowing the U.S. would "rush" to get out because of it being the PC thing to do - (no UN support) -
Turkey played around a long time - throwing things off and that didn't help
Makes it hard to tell just who the friends are - both in other nations - and with our own government -
just a thought -
As a battlefield for terrorists, the post-Iraq war has been a blessing.
The strategic advantage of terrorists is they are almost invisible and difficult to fight en masse.
Shooting fish in a barrel is preferable to the alternative.