... Seriously.. this is what he said...


The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.

"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Congress is seeking to tie funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq next year, but Bush has vowed to veto any such bill and no breakthrough was reported from the White House talks.

Bush on Thursday was addressing an Ohio town hall meeting and defending the war on terror launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.


"It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country from harm," Bush told the invited audience in Tipp, Ohio.

"A lesson learned was that -- at least in my opinion -- that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so that we do not have to face them here."

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.

"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

The comments came a day after bombers killed more than 200 people in a slew of car bombings in Baghdad, dealing a savage blow to the US security plan which aims to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in the country to quell sectarian unrest.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates fly into Iraq Thursday on an unannounced visit for talks with top US military commanders there.

He met with General David Petraeus, chief of coalition forces in Iraq, his deputy Lieutenant Colonel Ray Odierno and Admiral William Fallon, chief of US forces in the Middle East.



www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419184534.ileoeb47&show_article=1

it depends on how you want to define the military's mission and the strategic objective as a whole doesn't?

I really don't understand people.

The surge began AFTER violence began dropping and was centered on Baghdad. Violence dropped sharply all over Iraq.

Because of the CLCs. Concerned Local Citizens groups. Add the Sadr militia basically being disbanded and you can discount the minor effect of a few thousand more troops in one small area.

For about $300 a month, we pay insurgents and even Al Qaeda members to police their own neighborhoods and that has made all the difference.

I don't understand why some people find that hard to comprehend.

We do have other sections besides US politics.  And a discussion on Iraq should be in one of them.  Please attempt to follow the rules. 

Simply pathetic....

First time I have heard a million dead in Iraq.
Bill Reilly says it is 65,000.
So I'm guessing the actual figure is somewhere between these two numbers.

I don't mean to sound judgmental, but you shouldn't just throw statistics out there and "hope they stick."

It can take away from any intelligent and accurate statements you may make.

The Iraq war was won militarily and politicaly (they caught Saddam). Economicaly, and diplomaticaly it was a defeat. In the context of the war on terror it was useless and possibly counter productive.

I would say this war was won, but it was useless for America.