[Beckwith]

Another liberal genius heard from and the entire essay is written with the appeasement of the terrorists and murderers in Iraq as its single goal. In the complete essay (link above), he never alludes to a real peace, but repeatedly to a “peace process”. His “peace process” hinges entirely on the United States withdrawing from Iraq. What is it with these “process over substance” lunatics?

He writes, “If the fighters loyal to Saddam saw … Jordanian troops … they might be more willing to lay down their arms.” Sure, since the fighters loyal to Saddam are Sunnis, I expect they would be delighted with the Jordanians, Saudis and Syrians, all Sunni-ruled countries. I expect they would feel less secure with Iran, Oman and Bahrain which have Shiite majorities and are ruled by Shiites.

This puffy little twit’s “plan” is focused on making peace with the resistance.  Resistance, he calls the murdering bastards.  Making peace with the “resistance” is called surrendering and to a small minority of terrorists, Baathists and assorted criminals who are blowing up our guys and murdering civilian men, women and children daily for the purpose of restoring another Baathist dictator or worse.  I guess Galindez is cool with that.

Basically, this fool is arguing that the Coalition and Iraqi forces should surrender twenty-five million Iraqis to the “resistance” that, by any measure, is numbered in the thousands. Where, oh where, do these whackjobs get these notions?
 

[Rummyfan]

Scott Galindez? Who cares what a figure skater thinks about Iraq!

[standupfortruth]

The fact that he could even ask this question: how much worse could things get if the United States pulled out of Iraq?” proves just how clueless he is.

[ClaireSolt]

The very last thing any nation wants is to have their neighbors' armies in their country when they are weak. Morons like this think something dumb like all Arabs look alike. Note that Iraqis have consistently said no to such suggestions.

[The_Victor]

Stating the obvious, he writes, “To the forces loyal to Saddam, the United States is the enemy. The United States invaded their country and continues to occupy it. While they are not pleased that the Shia majority is forming a government, the Shiites didn't bomb them, the Shiites didn't invade their country. There would be a much greater chance that they would lay down their arms and re-join Iraqi society if the United States were gone.”

So why then do the terrorists keep indiscriminately killing Iraqis by bombing Shia mosques, security forces sites, markets... etc? If the above assertion were ture then the terrorists would be killing Americans, exclusively if possible. Instead, they are blowing up anything that represents progress toward a free Iraq. Perhaps the author didn't major in logic.