Oh yes, and don’t overlook the blatant double standard. Any time the Americans kill civilians it is “regrettable but unavoidable collateral damage”, because after all, they were not targetting the civilians, no matter how many of them they manage to kill, and how few so-called “bad guys”, and no matter how inevitable it was that they would be killing more civilians than so-called “bad guys”. However, any time the resistance harms a civilian in an attack on the occupation, the assumption is that they were targetting the civilians, and they are labeled terrorists. So, either the Americans are terrorists because they kill tens or hundreds or even thousands of civilians for every so-called ‘bad guy”, or else the civilians killed by resistance fighters who are attacking elements of the occupation are also “regrettable collateral damage”. You can’t have it both ways if you are going to be honest about it.

Oh, yes, and are you aware that resistance groups and fighters have spoken out very strongly, and taken actions against those who are attacking civilians? Perhaps not, since it is unlikely that information has made it into the U.S. media.

And are you aware that so-called “Sunni insurgents” have been fighting against the Al Qa`eda knock-off groups since way before genius Petraeus got the idea of “recruiting” them to fight on “his side”? Hint: They are not allies of the Americans, and they are not fighting “on the side of” the Americans. They are using the Americans to help them fight against people they have seen as a threat and an enemy from the beginning. And as an added bonus, while the Americans are stupidly seeing them as allies, they don’t have to divide their resources between fighting two different enemies.

Terrorism is not the same thing as resistance. Attacking a foreign occupation in your country is not terrorism.

IF the “terrorists” only confined their attacks to the US soldiers as occupiers you would be correct. However, they have been engaged (according to several sources) in civilian attacks for political and sectarian purposes, even ethnic cleansing, and how is that not terrorism?

And, as you noted, the WH actually did call them terrorists, which makes it all the more curious as to why we would be arming them. We are arming the Shia as well as the Sunnis. So, what better way to drive home the point that the WH really does not care about what happens to the troops than by showing just who the WH considers as our friends. It’s only a matter of time before these arms the WH is handing out now is used on our troops.

HH… I think your grandfather was a wise man… JFK was a hero to many, although as we know, he did have his faults and short comings… But he, more than anyone I can remember, was able to inspire those around him to greatness. I mean by that: he made everyone believe and then act to make things better.

What say you about the candidates and their campaign so far. I have ruled out any repubs, and have narrowed the dems down to 4-5, and am leaning more and more toward one, but looks like my primary vote won’t count in Dem primary. Lots of voting shenanigans going on too in other states…

IMPEACH !!!! It’s the RIGHT thing to do!!!

Can we please try to avoid falling into using the Bush regime’s own propaganda? Attacks on occupation forces are by definition not terrorism. The people who attack the occupation forces are by definition not terrorists.

So, if there’s 20+ groups (and probably more now, perhaps Larry has an updated number), who are the allies? Why are we in the middle if we don’t know who to fight and who to protect? It can’t change weekly if we think we will solve this. Either that or we disarm EVERYBODY, and the arms manufacturers won’t allow that to happen.

The goalposts have been moving since before 3/03.

Go back a couple of years to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, rolled out to much fanfare in 2005, and promptly ignored after that by the WH. It was mostly a benchmark document without a plan to get there [although it was sold as a "plan" where the D's didn't have a "plan for Iraq"]. We have a duly elected government that is was recognized by the WH as the legitimate and sovereign represntative of Iraq.

Now W is snubbing them because he doesn’t like them, and is permitting ominous comments from government reps and Allawi dabbling in regime change [where IS that money coming from, it's illegal to hide the source in the US], one wonders why W would go with the guy that got 1% in the last election with purple fingers. I cannot see how any puppet, even a well funded one, can unify Iraq, and Allawi is probably more hated that W in Iraq, maybe even more than Chalabi.

One last note: IF SecDef Gates follows through on his pledge about troop rotations, they will be drawing down by about 30,000 come April, as the 15 month deployments expire with no replacements. Big IF in my view, but I am pretty sure the WH will try to blame the D’s for any extensions. The only reason the D’s couldn’t be blamed before was because someone leaked the memo a couple of days early. An orderly withdrawal would be better, but if the Bush bio is accurate, they aren’t going to come home.

And when I say “you” I am responding to your use of “we”, so if you want me to use “they”, then you must use the third person also.

I believe that is what is called circular reasoning.

As for the paradise for terrorists’ part, that is purely your creation. If anything Saddam had created a bit of a hell for terrorists, or at least a very unfriendly place for them, and had done an excellent job of keeping them out. Oh, sure, a couple of old, worn out Palestinian former terrorists had retired there, and in fact one of them had actually become part of the “peace process”, and spent a couple of years in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of the Palestinian “team”, with Israel’s blessing. That one was the only big “terrorist supported by Saddam” that the Bushies ever managed to grab. Funny how they never mentioned that he had been equally supported by the Israeli government!