Wackypants Ahmadinejad says he's freeing the kidnapped British soldiers

After he gives his Iranian troops who captured them medals of honor of course... WaPo - Iran today announced the release of 15 British sailors and marines it seized two weeks ago in disputed waters of the Persian Gulf, ending a diplomatic crisis with a bit of political theater that included a chatty, smiling round of goodbyes between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Britons. In a surprise turn of events, Ahmadinejad in a Tehran press conference first awarded bravery medals to an Iranian commander involved in seizing the British seamen on March 23, then announced that the captives were being freed as a "gift" honoring both the Easter holiday and Muslim celebrations commemorating the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. "I announce their freedom," the Iranian president said, according to a translation of his press conference aired on CNN. "They will be free after our meeting. They will go to the airport and be with their families." Wackypants also took the media spotlight and used it to poke fun at the West by questioning our family values because we allow women to join the armed forces and also jokingly pleaded with Blair to not be mad at his soldiers for their remarks that Iran broadcast saying Britain was at fault. As if Britain would actually bring legal action against them for statements made while be held captive, basically a POW. But that's what you get from a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur... a lame sense of humor after reckless acts of war.

Iran interrogates captured British soldiers

And why hasn't their been any sort of response yet? TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Monday it was interrogating 15 British sailors and marines to determine whether they intentionally entered Iranian waters. Britain denies its personnel had left Iraqi territory when they were captured and detained by Iran. British Prime Minister Tony Blair ‘s office sought to play down fears that the incident would deepen tensions with Iran, which threatened to charge the 15 with illegally entering its territory. The seizure of the British service personnel has deepened troubles between Iran and the West, which is concerned about Iran‘s nuclear program and accused the country of interfering with the U.S.-led war in Iraq . According to Iranian state television, Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi did not say what Iran plans to do with the sailors and marines, but he said they were being interrogated. He said the British government was accountable for the group‘s actions. Iran rejected British requests to visit them, warning they could face charges for allegedly entering Iranian waters — charges that Blair‘s office has repeatedly rejected. Britain‘s Defense Ministry would not disclose details of positioning equipment carried aboard the craft that sailors were using when they were seized, but said it was "categorically certain" they had not strayed into Iranian territory. As much as I'm a fan of Tony Blair, he hasn't adequately responded to this. This is in every sense, an act of war. Diplomatic talks while a great option, shouldn't be the only option. Perhaps a naval blockade or a precision strike on a republican guard training compound... Something that says these soldiers lives are more important than some soundbites and a couple rounds of diplomatic talks. Their capture deserves swift a decisive action.

Iran seizes 15 British soldiers

Bombing of Tehran starts in 5 minutes. At least it should. That's an act of war. March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Iran seized 15 British sailors and Marines who were conducting "routine boarding operations" in Iraqi waters, the U.K. Ministry of Defence said. "The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters," the ministry said in an e-mailed statement. "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level." Iran's foreign ministry confirmed seizing the Britons "for investigation and questioning" and said it was because British sailors have illegally entered its own territorial waters "a number of times," Agence France-Presse reported, citing Iranian State television. They better get all 15 soldiers back in a timely manner without a hair on their heads out of place. Otherwise you can bet Iran gonna be up to their neck in in shit courtesy of British and US marines.

This is the type of scum that our troops are dealing with in Iraq

And for leftist moonbat like Michael Moore, he can say the Iraqis insurgents are the new minutemen. Well, I'm sorry but I don't remember George Washington using children to get close to the British and then killing them the same as he would kill his enemy. VOA - A senior U.S. military officer says insurgents in Iraq used two children to help them pass a coalition checkpoint in Baghdad in recent days, and then detonated a car bomb, killing the children. The officer reported the incident during a news conference at the Pentagon, and VOA's Al Pessin reports. Major General Michael Barbero says this is the first time he has heard of insurgents using what he called this brutal and ruthless technique. "We saw a vehicle with two children in the back seat come up to one of our checkpoints, get stopped by our folks, the children in the back seat lowered suspicion, we let it move through," he said. "They parked the vehicle, the adults ran out and detonated with the children in the back." And somehow the coalition forces, who are trying to stop this kind of senseless murder get lambasted by the anti-war freaks and the MSM as the bad guys. That's f*cked up.

Senate Republicans stand firm and block the Democrats attempt to force troop withdrawal

The only Republican that broke ranks and voted with the Dems was Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon. WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq. Go to Complete Coverage » The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation. [...] The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. Good work Senate Republicans blocking the Democrats proposal. Setting a set date for withdrawal is like giving the terrorists a date after which they can do whatever they want. It's like Aussie Prime Minister Howard had said about a possible presidential Democratic victory in '08: "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Whatever date we set for withdrawal, I'm sure the terrorists' calendar would have a big circle around that date. But cheer up Democrats. Your party finally did a couple things right. They finally had an original idea, and they actually tried to enact policy based on that idea. Sure it was about as wrong an idea as they could have possibly come up with, but at least it's more than the pointless anti-Bush blather that they usually rely on.

Britain sends a prince to Iraq

Prince Harry will be fighting for his country in the GWOT in Iraq. Forbes - He's the redheaded son of the late Princess Diana, the rowdy royal known more for dancing until dawn than waking for battle. But Britain's party prince, Harry, is getting his wish and is being deployed to Iraq this spring with his Blues and Royals regiment. Royal officials announced Thursday that the 22-year-old prince would fight for his country, confirming feverish tabloid speculation about the future of the best-recognized tank commander in Britain. His regiment is expected to set out in May or June for a six-month tour. Harry, a second lieutenant, has been trained to lead a team of 12 men in four armored reconnaissance vehicles and could become the first British royal to see combat since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a Royal Navy pilot in the Falklands War against Argentina in 1982. This has of course been all over the MSM lately and deservedly so, but for the wrong reasons. You can hear the newscaster's hand-wringing when they say, "Won't Harry be a huge target for the insurgents?" Sure it's easy to have a brain-fart moment and say of course he'll be a big target, but I think that's giving a little too much credit to the insurgents. How are they going to recognize Harry? I don't think he'll be wearing a crown in the field, or have anything else on him that's going to make him stand out as a Prince of England. It's not like Medieval times when the royalty wore royal garbs into battle. He's going to look like every other tank commander Britain has over there. And when I'm sure by the time a terrorist gets close enough to recognize him, I'm sure his men will make short work of the would-be terrorist. That brings up another good point. His men, knowing who Harry is, are going to fight until their last dying breath to protect their commander, which could very well make it even more difficult to get to Harry. You don't think one of them would throw themselves on a grenade to save him? Take a bullet? They'll stop at nothing to protect him. So good luck Harry. Be safe.

It's always fun mixing it up with dissenting, anonymous commenters...

This person wasn't exactly a troll, but did their best to cover their tracks... So I thought I'd post their original comment as well as my repsonse. It's so much easier to read when you don't have to scroll through those tiny Haloscan comments windows... I stumbled across you blog. it's so fascinating to read a conservative perspective on war. The problem I have with Iraq war is the number of Iraqi deaths. The fucked up situation in Iraq wasn't created by Americans...it happened way before all of that with the division of the Ottoman empire...the formation of a multi-tribed nation state later living under a dictator... the problems are complex but why are American troops in there trying to liberate a country and killing so many people in the process? THere's this paternalistic attitude that only Americans can save these people because they are too uncivilised to govern themselves. They support unpopular governments that promote the American agenda. While the idea of saving a country from an evil dictator is noble (and Hollywood) the reality is the dictator is dead, there are more people dying. What is being gained from this war? Meanwhile North Korea has nukes, and after seeing what happened in Iraq I'm sure more countries will be nuking up to protect themselves. The only country that has ever dropped a nuke on a civillian population is us. More people will die for nothing. So many in Iraq already have. An American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. All life is equal. You people amaze me with your over simplification of issues. I guess it makes the world an easier place to live in. Have a nice life. - Interest A fabulous comment, no? So here's my reply... Hey, thanks for stopping by. Other perspectives are always welcome here. I can appreciate your concern for the Iraqi civilian casualties, and I agree that the problem in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is based on issues and hatreds centuries old. We are coming into this fight a bit late... And that's about where my agreement with you ends. 99% of civilians killed in Iraq were murdered by the insurgents in an effort to break the spirit of not just Americans, but Iraqis as well. They're certainly not being killed by US troops. All you have to do is read any newspaper or tune to any news program to see the latest car bomb at a market, mosque, or recruitment center. And since you appear to by confused by who's who over there, our guys are the ones wearing uniforms, in jeeps, holding guns. You know... normal soldiers. The bad guys are hiding among the innocent, using them as shields, blowing them up in an effort to blackmail us. What I love about the liberal perspective is how they make the terrorists moral equivalents to our troops. They kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Apparently that's a distinction only those not blinded by their liberal hate can recognize. As far as the popularity contest, you'd prefer be the main priority of the US government, the Iraqi government is only unpopular with the insurgents. The average Iraqi was thrilled at the chance to vote on their leadership. Just see the poll turnouts. And they're damn thankful we ignored the rest of the world and helped free them from the oppressive, genocidal, murderer that had been ruling their country. As far as North Korea and their nukes, you've got a great example of what happens when you ignore the rest of the world and rely 100% on diplomatic efforts. Kim Jong Il flat out lied to Clinton, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and then went ahead with his nuclear programs anyway. We didn't attack NK, or anywhere nearby that made him fear for the safety of his nation. Evil dictators don't need an excuse for their nuclear agendas, and saying they'd only pursue nukes because we are in the region is a gross, childish oversimplification. Sure we've got nukes and yes we've used them and we did so to force the hand of an adversary unwilling to surrender. How long should we have let that war drag on? That of course brings us to your million dollar question, why are we there? How's national security, global war on terror, and freeing an oppressed people strike you? And wouldn't you know it, that also shows that we value Iraqi life just as much as we value American life. We value it so much that we're sending our own sons and daughters there, risking their lives for the lives of Iraqis. Some might even argue we're valuing the lives of the Iraqis more than our own. Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove we don't value Iraqi lives. So when you're done oversimplifying things with your pacifist hopes and dreams that we ought to be trying to make a world were all problems are solved with hugs and puppy dogs, I'll be having a nice life. In reality. Anyone want to add something? Feel free to leave a comment! And hopefully, in the next couple days, I'll get a chance to repsond to a global warming email I got. This guy didn't like the little Al Gore image over on the left... So check back soon for that!

Take the pledge...

I think it's fair to say that the war hasn't gone as planned. Sure we defeated Saddam's military forces quickly, but despite the President's warnings, I still think most Americans still expected our military might to not only crush Saddam's traditional military, but any residual guerrilla fighting as well. Despite the warnings, I don't think America was mentally prepared for the stubborn toughness (tough in the hard to kill a cockroach kind of tough) of the terrorist elements, insurgents, and religious warriors. But simply chalking this one up as a loss because we as a society weren't mentally prepared for a war that was intended to change the hearts and minds of a Muslim population that has been battered and beaten into submission by religious rivals and then expected to dismiss all past transgressions to allow the country to unify and move forward, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis all together as one. That sort of a unification takes a lot of time. So instead of throwing in the towel on the current plan, he let it be reworked, changed, and revamped by professionals like General Petraeus. The big idea he got in return was "send more troops." So that's what he pledged to do. But now the newly elected Democratic Senate is getting Republican support from Senators Norm Coleman and John Warner for a measure that would block the 21,500 extra troops that were approved for deployment into Iraq. On an anecdotal note, the possibility that these extra 21,500 troops might be prevented from going by a Senate vote is pissing the hell out of our troops and their supports. A lady I work with, who's son died in Iraq, made the statement that "if they refuse to send those extra troops, they are giving up on the war and motivating the enemy, and if they lose the war, my son died for nothing." My thoughts exactly... What honors our troops more? Pulling out and truly making this another Vietnam (that anaolgy would finally be accurate to an extent) or finishing the job, so that the sacrifice our troops and their friends and family have made won't have been in vain. So if you're pro-victory, sign the pledge (via Hugh Hewitt). We can win this war. We just have to want to win it.

Memorial held for local marine killed in Iraq

It was a beautiful ceremony... extremely moving. ANZA -- At times light-hearted and at others solemn, a memorial service Monday for Jeromy D. West, a 20-year-old Marine from Aguanga killed recently in Iraq, was in the end a celebration of the life of a young man who had loved his family and was proud to serve his country. [...] They called him a hero and recalled how on many occasions he had been protective of them or he made them laugh. Lisa West, his mother, spoke about her son's stubbornness, about the day he was born, about the mullet haircut he sported in his youth and about his decision to join the Marines when he was 17. Many things went through her mind the day he enlisted, she said, "and this day was one of them." But she is at peace, West said, because it had been something her son felt passionate about doing. "He wanted to do this so his friends and family were safe," she said. I was lucky enough to meet Jeromy once, even if it was only in passing, and I was truly saddened when I heard he'd been killed by a sniper in Iraq. I knew how hard this would be for his family because of how proud his mother and sister were of him and his service. He will be remembered and honored for years in this area. Thank you for your service Jeromy. Rest in peace.

This is the brain trust America elected...

America, you put these people in power and these are the kinds of ideas you can expect until 2008... Key Democrats, including the incoming House speaker, House majority leader and chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees, said they do not support a resumption of the draft. They predicted that the idea will gather little momentum in the 110th Congress, which convenes in January. Pentagon officials also restated their opposition to a draft. Their comments came a day after Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Ways and Means Committee, said he would again introduce a bill calling for a return to the draft, which has been suspended since 1973. Rangel's previous bids to reinstate the draft stirred little interest in Congress but considerable agitation among some bloggers and talk radio hosts, who suggested the public was about to be blindsided. Yesterday, congressional leaders tried to allay such fears, saying the 2007-08 legislative agenda will not include a resumption of the draft. The draft. Briliant idea Chuck. So brilliant in fact that one of Kerry's lies about Bush in the '04 election was that Dubya'd reinstate the draft. I guess not... Must only be the Democrats who think our professional armed forces aren't good enough to finish the job.

General Abizaid says "Cut and Run" philosophy is bad

Timetables are bad, m-kay? Democrats had been hammering Bush for ignoring the advice of his commanders on the generals on the ground in Iraq, so let's see if the Democrats decide to ignore the advice of the generals on the ground. WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rejecting the arguments of resurgent Democrats who are pressing President Bush to start pulling out. Gen. John Abizaid instead urged quick action to strengthen Iraq's government, predicting that the vicious sectarian violence in Baghdad would surge out of control within four to six months unless immediate steps were taken. "Our troop posture needs to stay where it is," and the use of military adviser teams embedded with Iraqi army and police forces needs to be expanded, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was the first hearing on Iraq policy since last week's elections gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress starting in January. I've got money that they push "cut and run" anyway, despite the general's advice that leaving now will simply turn Iraq into a terrorist cesspool. What most articles that discussed Abizaid's comments left out was his entire exchange with Hillary Clinton. Hugh played it on the radio last night and the SF Gate came the closest to transcribing the exchange. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said benchmarks for progress only continue to recede. "Hope is not a strategy," said Clinton, another likely presidential contender. "Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I mean, I have heard over and over again that the government must do this, the Iraqi army must do that. Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it is not happening." [...] Abizaid also countered the pessimistic views of the senators by saying that despair is not a strategy. "And when I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help. And I believe that." The commanders, our troops, and the Iraqis have hope still. Too bad the hand-wringers in Washington don't... UPDATE @ 2:46pm: Maybe not cut and run... Dems pick Hoyer over Murtha.

150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents

150,000 killed by insurgents since the March 2003 invasion? 3 times that wounded? I know the Iraqis are the main targets of the insurgents, an attempt to dissuade them from joining Iraqi police and military forces and fighting with coalition troops, but that number seems way too high... BAGHDAD, Iraq - Nearly simultaneous car bombs struck two markets in predominantly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 16 people. Iraq's health minister said about 150,000 have been killed by insurgents since the war started, giving the government's first overall casualty estimate. [...] The health minister [Ali al-Shemari] also said the United States should hand Iraqis full control of its army and police force. Doing so, he said, would allow the Iraqi government to bring the violence under control within six months. "The army of America didn't do its job ... they tie the hands of my government," al-Shemari said. "They should hand us the power, we are a sovereign country," he said, adding that as a first step, U.S. soldiers should leave Iraq's cities. Hey, al-Shermari, we'd love to hand the Iraqis full control of the police and miltary to you if you could function without our support. The American people certainly don't want to be in Iraq any longer than we have too. But listening to the Health Minister, you ought to know the full story. He neglected to explain how he reached the 150,000 which is three times most other estimates. He is also a member of Muqtada al-Sadr militia which was the apparent impetus of a raid on his office last August and the arrest of several of his guards. Think that it's possible that he has his own agenda?

Troops send a message to John Kerry

I hope he can read it though... they're so stupid they got stuck in Iraq afterall... Looks like they didn't get Kerry's joke either Olbermann...

Olbermann takes stupid to a whole new level

If you thought Kerry's comments about our troops being stuck in Iraq because they weren't smart enough to do anything else with their lives was bad, you've got to see Keith Olbermann's 10 minute rant that it is President Bush who owes the troops an apology not Senator Kerry. Olbermann takes "stuck on stupid" to a whole new level... AlterNet has the video posted; just look to the right and click on Keith's ugly mug and try not to have anything nearby that might be used as a projectile. I'd hate to get complaints about staplers and tape dispensers being thrown through computer screens. We've also got the transcript up over at the AND Network. Here's some of Keith's commentary that's so brilliant it can only be attributed to an ingenious Karl Rove plot to drum up more anger at liberals... Sen. Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial. He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education - that “if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq. The senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid. The context was unmistakable: Texas; the state of denial; stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required. And Mr. Bush and his minions responded by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid. Context unmistakable, huh? Sure... cause I always assume the joke is about Bush when I hear "you know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." I think there must be a participle dangling there somewhere... You can only say "you" so many times before you've got to think that all eight "you's" in the sentence refer to the same person... Maybe Keith needs to hear the Kerry clip again.... So, that's either the most complicated joke in the history of the world... ever, or Keith Olbermann is some sort of uber-genius, and somehow I don't think genius takes the path from sports reporting to MSNBC stooge. But then again he's probably from the retarded 1/4 that also believes Bush was behind 9/11 and that Elvis is still alive...

John Kerry says only stupid people end up in our military

And you won't believe how he's trying to spin his way out of this one... First off, the comment came at a campaign stop at Pasadena City College where Kerry stuck his foot into his mouth pretty much all the way up to his knee... While campaigning in California, Kerry told a college crowd on Monday: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Well now... so only the stupid kids get sent to Iraq? Are all military personnel stupid? Having served in the military, does that make you stupid Senator Kerry? Before we start piling on too much, one of his spokespeople offered an explanation: Kerry misread the speech: Kerry's office released his prepared remarks, which said, "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." If true, while there's still a nice Freudian slip type feel to the remark, we can't hammer him too badly... It's not like Bush is a perfect orator either. We all make verbal mistakes; no bid deal... But then Kerry goes and opens his big fat mouth some more trying to respond to comments from the White House, specifically Tony Snow, that he ought to apologize. The Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential nominee struck back, although he said that he was making a "botched joke" during a campaign appearance for a Democratic congressional candidate Monday. He said that Snow and the others distorted what he said. "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq," Kerry said in a statement. "It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have." Oh really? It's a lies, lies, vicious lies! A vast right wing conspiracy! Karl Rove's minions changed my speech at the last minute! Then a little misdirection that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and there you have it. The liberal two-step. A simple, "sorry, didn't mean that," or "misread my speech" really could have delfated the whole issue. We'd have snickered over the issue for a day and then forgotten all about it. Now that you've made a huge deal out of the whole thing and insulted Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh for no reason, it's going to be a topic of conversation for an entire week. The week before the election is going to be spent trying to figure out why John Kerry is so bitter and angry and if it's a symptomatic problem of the Democratic party as a whole. Why can't democrats just simply say "oops... my bad" and move on with their lives. He's taken the focus off of whatever other scandal information they had waiting in the wings and put it on why John Kerry's an idiot. I guess Dennis Prager's right... being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry. UPDATE @ 3:57pm: GOP and the City had the video of John Kerry's idiocy... UPDATE 11/1 @ 4:05pm: Kerry apologizes... In a brief statement, Kerry apologizes to "any service memeber, family member or American who was offended" by remarks he made earlier this week, in which he suggested that those who don't do well in school could "get stuck in Iraq." In the statement, Kerry says he sincerely regrets that his words were, as he put it, "misinterpreted to imply anything negative about those in uniform." Took him long enough. Hell, even Hillary Clinton was out there saying his remarks were "inappropriate."

British General say Iraq is worse because we're there

But did General Richard Dannatt really say that? In the Daily Mail interview, Dannatt said: "I don't say the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." Britain should get "out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," he told the newspaper. First off the Daily Mail is well known for its opposition to the conservative government’s policies… Think New York Times… Second, what’s he really saying here? Is he discussing Britain’s popularity around the world or the current climate of unrest in Iraq? Sounds like the former, but regardless, is that really true? Will things around the world get better if foreign troops leave Iraq? The Iraqis don’t think so, and I don’t think Muslims around the world will all of a sudden be at peace as soon as we leave Iraq. They flew planes into the WTC long before we were in Iraq. They bombed the USS Cole long before Iraq. They bombed 2 American embassies in Africa long before Iraq. And here’s a host of others’ opinions on the necessity of the Brits (and our) presence in Iraq. And now the good General has come back out and clarified his comments that appear to have been taken out of context saying that the troops should come home soon, Gen Dannatt said there was not "a piece of paper, however thin" between him and the government. The general refused to back down on the substance of his remarks and to some degree compounded them. "I am not a maverick in this sense. I am soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying come on, we can't be here forever at this level," he told Radio 4's Today programme. "I have got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one." In another interview, with Sky News, Gen Dannatt said: "The army is exceptionally busy so I want to see this mission successfully concluded, but I also want to make sure I've got an army that's not so exhausted that it's still there and can do the job in five years' time, in 10 years' time ..." And again the paper tries to take his comments and infer ulterior meanings from them, but all he’s doing is looking out for his troops, and acknowledging commonly held beliefs that we’re not going to be in Iraq forever, but while we’re there, we’re there to win. These are hardly that inflammatory. We’re there. We’re needed. And we’ll be there for several years, but not at the same troop levels we have now. Use your heads people. The Iraqi army and police force are growing and quickly become more and more capable. We’ll get there…. It’s just a matter of when.