[PhilDragoo]

We don't need Iraq to attack Iran. And we don't expect a public statement from Iraq in this regard--compare to Pakistan.

Syria lost its North Korean nuclear program--and we had plausible deniability.

What we have accomplished in Iraq is twofold:

One, we tied up the Islamist enemy and killed his leadership and 20,000 of his fighters--simultaneously preventing another strike on CONUS;

Two, we have made an ally of an enemy--all through the steadfast performance of the American fighting man, and the American commander-in-chief.

Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nicely said....The Future Iraq

***************************EXCERPT***********************

The WaPo notices in today’s editorial a signal lost on much of the MSM over the last week. The fact that the new government of Iraq stood up to Iran and signaled that they DO want a partnership with America. Just on their terms:

************************SNIP*********************

The WaPo goes on to wonder why the Democrats have stood in lockstep with the leaders of Iran in denouncing the US-Iraqi agreement before the thing is even written.

“It’s pretty clear their intentions are that we put in a basing system in Iraq that parallels the Korea-Japan history,”

~~~

The history of every single outside occupation of Iraq over the last thousand years argues against that logic.”
-Sen. James Webb

The history suggests that it can’t be done….so why even try says the Democrats. Sure, it may be impossible but at least friggin try! In the end their mission is to make it appear that Bush wants to stay in Iraq forever, that way Obama can look good when he says he will bring them all home.

The WaPo continues:

If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq’s defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.

Surely you jest?

This is exactly what they want. How else to blame Bush for it?

[Marine_Uncle]

May I repeat Phil's statement:
"Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing."
I would only add, then I have to get ready for work... the longer it is postponed, the more Iran will ultimately loose.

[Grampa Dave]

Travis McGee predicted this result years ago re al Qaeda thugs rushing into Iraq to be destroyed like moths attacking lanterns/candles:

“What we have accomplished in Iraq is twofold:

One, we tied up the Islamist enemy and killed his leadership and 20,000 of his fighters—simultaneously preventing another strike on CONUS;

Two, we have made an ally of an enemy—all through the steadfast performance of the American fighting man, and the American commander-in-chief.

Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing.”