Top general in Mideast to retire – Los Angeles Times — This fiasco is getting so much like Viet Nam that we’re going to have to find a Richard Nixon to get us out of it. My question: will we have to bomb Cambodia again too?

WASHINGTON — Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to retire and will leave his post in March, a step likely to make way for a change in military strategy at a time the Bush administration is seeking a new plan for Iraq.

Abizaid has been the primary architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan since becoming head of the U.S. Central Command more than three years ago. He has strenuously resisted calls to increase troop levels to quell rising violence in Baghdad, arguing it would increase Iraqi dependence on Americans.

But a growing number of current and former officers have embraced the idea, some of whom have briefed President Bush as part of his monthlong review of Iraq policy, and the White House is believed to be considering the move.

And of course the Bush War has killed more Americans than 9/11 as of this Christmas. Every death adds to the record now. That said Bush has a way to go before he kills 50,000 like McNamera and the boys did in Viet Nam. There is no evidence that they cannot eventually manage it.

NEW YORK — In a span of a few hours, 2,973 people were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In a span of 45 months, the number of American troops killed in Iraq has exceeded that grim toll.

  1. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    That poster is a classic.

    That is all.

  2. V says:

    Not to mention the number of Iraqis dying. I thought we were going in there to overthrow a tyrant and benefit the people by helping them build a fair and just democratic government.

    Mission failed.

  3. Spencer says:

    #3 Timbo, JFK did not start the war in Vietnam. It was going in 1948 or perhaps earlier, more than 11 years before Kennedy was elected president.

    It was under Republican president Dwight Eisenhower that US troops were first sent to Vietnam. In fact, there were US airmen shot down at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

  4. Jägermeister says:


    George Bush started with the pain of 9/11 and the fact that everyone wanted to hit back at someone. He offered Iraq, an enemy it looked like we could whip.

    For starters, the U.S. hit the right enemy… in Afghanistan. Bush choose to attack Iraq in order to fix daddy’s mistake of not toppling him when he had the chance in the first Gulf War. Lying and deceiving all the way to get his war.

    George Bush delegated the war to wiser heads while he has been trying to keep the economy from collapsing, using emergency war powers to do so.

    You’re calling Donald Rumsfeld a wiser head… and Bush trying to save the collapsing economy… he’s spending money like there’s no tomorrow.

    Timbo… Seriously, stop getting your news from Fox News, cartoons and the bible…

  5. doug says:

    #4. “Iraq was but one piece of a multi pronged attack on the forces that attacked us, and I feel it has been effective.”

    please cite to some proof that Iraq worked with al-Queda in carrying out 9/11 or obtained material support from Saddam Hussein.

  6. Jägermeister says:


    The fact remains that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq when Saddam was the ruler. It was wishful thinking from Bush.

    I’m sure the money spent in Iraq could have been spent more wisely in tracking down and stomping terrorists.

    A question you should ask yourself is… How many terrorists have the war in Iraq created?

  7. Spencer says:

    #4, deej, do you actually think that Al Qaida says “Well now, since the US is at war in Iraq we will not attack them?”

    That does not make sense. How does it follow that if the US is at war in Iraq, Al Qaida will leave us alone?

    Are you really so gullible that you swallow that illogical line of reasoning?

  8. Mark says:

    Wow, can we send John F Kerry back to Cambodia?

  9. Brian says:

    Iraq was never a threat to the US. Anyone who still thinks they are will never realize anything other than the party line the neocons have been handing down. They probably still think Iraq had WMDs (even though your president has declared otherwise).

    In other news, Saddam was hanged on a Muslim religious day. That ought to settle down the insurgency and civil war – NOT.

    Finally, Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq prior to the war; Saddam would never have allowed it. We had the right idea hitting Afghanistan and hitting it hard, but leaving before the job was done and going someplace unrelated is where policy began to fall apart.

  10. mxpwr03 says:

    #7 – “Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.” —

  11. doug says:

    13. Ah, so you put that web site up against the conclusion of the 9/11 commission, which even the Bush Administration has accepted? On the basis of just living there, we could have invaded Germany, which sheltered the Hamburg cell …

  12. Brian says:


    Ridiculous home grown ‘hit’ site you have there. I see how you’ve so conveniently left out the right wing folk who have said there was no link between 9/11 and iraq or al qaeda and iraq.

    Selective hysteria I take it?


  13. Greg Allen says:

    >>This fiasco is getting so much like Viet Nam that we’re going to have to find a Richard Nixon

    I believe it was the Democrats who finally got us out of Vietnam, by refusing to fund it.

    It might come down to that, again.

  14. mxpwr03 says:

    Brian and Doug, we have been at war with “Islamic Radicalism” since the Gulf War. Claiming that if a country was not directly linked to 9/11, and therefore not a piece of the larger puzzle is short sighted. Moreover to your point, I agree with you that Saddam did not play a role in 9/11! I never claimed as much, I pointed out the fact that he harbored and trained terrorists after the first WTC attack in 1993. And Brian I don’t know whats got your tit in the ringer but, if you would have taken the time to read that site, which is written by a scholarly author, Saddam did have links to Al-Qaeda. “Pathetic”!

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #12, mxpwr03

    Your link is a bogus, slanted, bigoted, ill informed, garbage filled, NON scholarly diatribe by some asshole on an agenda. Much like you. Shit, I had to check the address to make sure I wasn’t reading the Onion. Quoting an opinion piece as fact doesn’t make it so.

  16. Jägermeister says:

    #17, #18

    I fully agree with you guys.

  17. Timbo says:

    This is not a news site — it is a forum! The point of a forum is to “keep the pot boiling” but keep it civil. That’s okay. That’s why all these controversial (& inflammatory) topics are brought up.

  18. mxpwr03 says:

    Doug good points I should have elaborated on my first one, mainly “Islamic Radicalism,” while it is true the overthrowing of the Shah could be see as the start I was referring to the formation of Al Qaeda 2.0 after the Gulf War. You’re second point on OBL and Saddam it is true that Osama wanted to overthrow Saddam when he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, but that didn’t stop Saddam from harboring and supporting well known terrorists including the late Zarqawi.
    – Do you dispute the fact that Iraq harbored and supported Abu Abbas, Adu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir? Do you disagree with the fact that Saddam sent $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? How about the terrorist training camp called Salman Pak in Baghdad? These are all well documented examples of Saddam’s support for international terrorism.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6793 access attempts in the last 7 days.