Mike Luckovich

By Can You Say Housing Market Collapse?

November 11, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

Considering that Britney already weighs about 150 and is well on the way to 300, I’m not so sure that Kev is really that much of a “loser.”

And if you figure that Bush is going to get his beloved amnesty plan and he can blame the left wing panty waist party for the upcoming recession and the impending loss of Afghanistan, a sure byproduct of the Iraq cut and run, he may wind up looking like a winner in oh eight.

Compared to the petty, vindictive, negative dwelling democrats, stuck on stupid immaturity^^, and the damage to the country they will wrought, anybody will look good.

By Et tu, Afghanistan?

November 12, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

As it is, we’re in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can’t muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV. It doesn’t work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can’t win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That’s how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. “These Colors Don’t Run” is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. … To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.

By George

November 12, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Andy, ANDY!!!!

Please put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. You are badly in need of an intervention and the men in the white coats will be there shortly.

.

By Et tu, Afghanistan?

November 12, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Gosh Georgie, how deep and thoughtful you are this morning.

Got anymore of that liberal “intelligence” you’d like to share with us, wow us with?

Or is that it?

By test

November 12, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

test

By Shawny

November 13, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

The dems say, “we won because of Iraq.”

I disagree. I say moderate Republicans rejected the current congress for reasons illustrated in today’s cartoon that doesn’t suck, here:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GaryVarvel/2006/11/1

By the way, today’s Lucko cartoon does suck, but I am sure that cartoon boy can come up with several more ways to slam the Prez.

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Mike,

I don’t keep up with pop culture well enough to understand the analogy made in this cartoon. I just hope that those who grasp the subtleties of pop culture can appreciate it better than I.

By ed lorenzo

November 13, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

WHITE HOUSE GOSSIP

“Georgie, what are you going to do about Iraq? Even your generals are now saying that we should cut and run. Of course not in those terms but in a more poetic fashion like calling the turn tail action a managed withdrawal or a strategic active reduction or a discretionary involvement!”

“It is a matter of time my love. Soon the new Iraqi government will consolidate its resources and begin a campaign of convincing the three major contenders and subsidiary tribes that a stable arrangement is still possible. Now, with a new Congress and a new Secretary of Defense my Victory Plan is not far off, Lady!”

“Yeah, George but to be able to conceive and build a major consensus among those furious and intransigent insurgents, is going to require a new leader in Baghdad”

“You think so?”

“Abso, George! He has to be deceitful, wicked, untruthful, unfaithful, cruel, incapable of listening to others, inexorable, unperturbed, cynical, with dentures and wear a hair piece!”

“I see you have been reading the papers. You are thinking of Saddam Hussein, are you Lady?”

“Nope. Donald Rumsfeld!”

By Dusty

November 13, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Don’t feel bad. RW had to explain it to me. It wasn’t any better when I knew what ml was trying to tell us.

It goes like this. Two “celebreties” who stayed married only long enough to have a couple of babies called it quits by e-mail or something.

It has nothing to do with President Bush but you know Luckovich. Always trying to demean the president by comparisons even with something as trivial and far fetched as this.

By ed lorenzo

November 13, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

OVERHEARD THIS AM AT THE WHITE BARN

“Georgie, are you sure you want to declassify those intelligence reports?”

“Absolutely, First Lady. I want the American people to read about the efforts my administration has made to protect my fellow citizens, the sacrifices I have made to preserve our freedom and save our democratic way of life. As Condi says, our universal flag is wrapped not only in democracy and prosperity but also in the firmness of my convictions. Smart girl that Condi, don’t you think?”

“It isn’t Condi that worries me. Those reports are going to show that between you, Dick and Don, ably supported by Karl, Condi and Paul, you have antagonized a couple of billion people on the planet and somehow awaken a wave of extremism in the Arab street. Plus three thousand brokenhearted American families and 100 thousand Iraqi and Afghan homes.And all that for the modest amount of 7 trillion dollars. Not to mention the several Frankenstein monsters you people have created like Hugo Chavez, Kim Il Son, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nancy Grace and Paul Shaffer,!”

“Paul Shaffer?”

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

To: Dusty (849),

Thanks.

By N-GA

November 13, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Dammit Ed….now Andy is going to have to change his diaper.

By getalife

November 13, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Pelosi Backs Murtha For Majority Leader.

Well, of course.

By Huge

November 13, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Shawney,

If you think last week’s elections weren’t first and foremost a mandate from the voters on the Iraqi invasion, I’m not sure where you’re getting your info. All the blubbering about all politics are local was incorrect this time.

Also, extensive gop arrogance, bordering on hubris, and new highs (lows?) for corruption factored heavily into their downfall. A boatload of hypocrites like Foley, Reed, Haggard et al didn’t exactly help their cause either.

Border security incompetence, more intrusive government into people’s private lives, being at the beck and call for powerful christian extremists, a nearly complete disregard for the environment and science and turning a blind eye to the export of jobs to the cheapest bidder we’re also major factors.

And yes, the easist and least painful explanation for the republicans was that people were upset with them for spending our money like drunken sailors, but it was not the most important factor, IMHO.

That got what they deserved, and so did we for six years…

By Nomad

November 13, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

ML this cartoon makes no sense. Try to do better next time.

NOMAD

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

LOL— Britney announces her pending divorce during the Dems’ electoral sweep through Congress, showing just how relevant her marital problems are to America— NOT!

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Don’t those jihadists in Iraq know that our election is over now? Why would they still be trying to influence our election yesterday?

Including the bodies discovered near Baqouba Sunday, authorities said 159 people were killed nationwide, including 35 who died when a two suicide bombers detonated explosives belts among police recruits outside a west Baghdad security forces headquarters

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Another sign of Dubya’s failed presidency:

Insurgent activity rising in Afghanistan

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Huge— here’s a Newsweek columnist’s analysis of what really happened in last week’s election:

The Category 4 political hurricane of 2006 was more than a referendum on an unpopular war and president: it signals the end of the conservative tide that began rising 40 years ago; it’s the end of a pernicious six-year experiment in “governing for the base,” and in many ways it’s a blessing in disguise for George W. Bush, who now has the opportunity to salvage something of his presidency

I want to know when KKK Rove will resign? That will free him to really go for the throat while testifying at Scooter’s trial in January!

By Cindy

November 13, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Ahhh. What a beautiful world.

By HumanisticJones

November 13, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

“and he can blame the left wing panty waist party for the upcoming recession and the impending loss of Afghanistan, a sure byproduct of the Iraq cut and run”

How dare you say such unpatriotic remarks. Impending loss of Afghanistan? You obviously have no faith in our troops or your government you pinko terrorist supporter.

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

To Goldie (934),

I don’t share Alter’s optimism about the election signalling “the end of the conservative tide that began rising 40 years ago.” I believe the conservative tide will arise again, more pernicious than ever, in 2008 unless Madame Speaker is able to achieve a coalition capable of demonstrating irrefutably that the country is being governed better than it has been the past six years. Aye, therein lies the rub.

By Dusty

November 13, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Yes, Cindy,

It is a beautiful day. Americans are still free. We are not making white flags yet. Our taxes have not been raised. We still have a strong president who is not afraid of people who disagree or hate him. We are helping others to obtain freedom like ours. I am proud to be an American.

By SarahConnah

November 13, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Impeach the Bush Reich!

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Goldilocks,

I’ll try not to upset Sybil and be too “condescending” in my response.

Re-read this as many times as necessary to comprehend the answer. Please advise if you have any questions:

Through violence, they are trying to influence the foreign policy decisions of newly elected Democrats and hoping that we will cut and run with a date certain so that they can plan their new Caliphate accordingly.

By creating as much havoc as possible they hope to convince fools like you (sorry Sybil, can’t help myself) that we are in a quagmire, need to “cut our losses” and get out of Dodge.

It worked in Spain when blowing up trains in Madrid threw the election to the Socialits, why should it not work in the U.S.?

BTW, I hope all you so-called “moderates” are paying attention to Chairman Pelosi’s palace coup where the “moderate” Dems like Jane Harmon and even Rahm Emanuel, whose sponosorship of “moderate” candidates won Democrats the majority, are being pushed aside in favor of rabid Leftists like Huge Gasbag who pretends to be a “moderate”.

By Lucko needs help

November 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Where’s the cartoon about Franklin, Young and Lewis. I guess Tucker would fire him if he commented on that.

By joewilson

November 13, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

I bet he posts at the lgf

By Huge

November 13, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

You know in a couple of ways, just like Diogenes at 9:34, I still have an uneasy feeling about what happened last week, in regards to how the neo-cons will react going forward.

In a few cases, maybe the more moderate ones will really have some sort of political epiphany, and learn to try and govern with more than just their hard-core constituents in mind.

But I certainly don’t trust the rank and file memebers of the christian far right to change their tunes one bit. The effort to keep their fake family values agenda minimalized and from exerting excessive influence on the government, especially the white house, must never be discounted again.

And secondly, unless the democrats shake off their history of also being able to get precious little accomplished on these major issues, the people will give up on them, faster than Braves fans in October…

By regulator

November 13, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

The housing market is going to collapse, the housing market tanked two years ago, dufus.

By Dusty

November 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Diogenes,

I would argue with your presumption that the conservative tide is and will be “more pernicious than ever”.

Perhaps you have forgotten the actual “pernicious” waves of 9/11, Katrina and the growing and spreading terrorism from the Middle East.

If you did not and do not like our efforts of control by Republicans, please tell me how to conjure up some optimism about Democrats who have shown no leadership before.

I am afraid that we are casting paper boats of Nan, Murth & Harry against great angry waves of the enemy.

(Must leave. Bye now!)

By Huge

November 13, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

That brilliant analysis at 10:10 is worthy of being reprinted in all of the major US publications, wouldn’t everyone agree?

Well, if it weren’t such utter hysterical garbage, maybe chickenhawk comic books anyway.

And that last paragraph? Are we to infer that I’m getting in on the palace coup? See all of you little people later!!!

But I could understand how numbskulls viewing the world from the most distant, far ends of the flat earth, would find nobody or no policy moderate…

By Midori

November 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Joe Wilson,

actually, he posts on Free Republic

Must be a friend of Andy’s.

By Explanations for Geezers

November 13, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

k-Fed defines the word LOSER. Dropped his wife and child after Brittany home-wrecked them and has been leeching off the pop princess ever since. Bush is so big a loser even k-Fed feels like a winner in comparison.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Huge Blowhard,

Surely it is not beyond even your abilities to get an objective reading of what happened just last week?

Forget about the elections in Spain - that’s too long ago for someone who has zero ability to understand history to comprehend.

It was CONSERVATIVE Democrats, you know, the ones who at least profess to have that “family values agenda” which you so despise, that won the election for you.

Would you care to dispute that fact?

By Huge

November 13, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

“It was CONSERVATIVE Democrats…”

It’s a week later, and in spite of your anemic efforts to try and make sense out of it all and to make yourself feel better, try to learn to speak in something other than sound bites.

“Would you care to dispute that fact?”

Nope, not with someone who hasn’t the first clue what conservatism is…

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

To Buy Danish (1041),

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

By joewilson

November 13, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Midori,

I was banned at the free pubic after two posts.

I guess I should have used my real name “getalife”.

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Last week’s election was mostly about the incompetence in Dubya’s management of our occupation of Iraq, as well as the bribery and corruption scandals in Congress… Dubya tried to shut down the Investigator General’s office, but the Dems are bringing it back:

Congressional Democrats say they will press new legislation next week to restore the power of a federal agency in charge of ferreting out waste and corruption in Iraq and greatly increase its investigative reach

The Repugnants wish to believe that it was “moderate” Dems who took a stand last week, citing Lieberman’s re-election as an example… HA! Lieberman would not have won the seat in Connecticut had it not been for the MILLIONS of $$ and voters supplied by the Repugnant Party — Joe-Mo is a Repugnant now! You can enjoy having him continue to support your war-mongering in the Middle East!

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

How about writing to Joe and convincing him to caucus with the Republicans. I’m sure Harry Reid would love you for that.

By REAL Conservatives Ain't Republican

November 13, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

After telling us for 6 years that Democrats are all flaming pinko liberals and that there ARE no conservative Democrats, the far right now is telling us that CONSERVATIVE Democrats are the ones who decided the election.

Maybe they accidently told the truth for a change. REAL conservatives have abandoned the Republican ‘do-nothing’, ‘spend it like there’s no tommorow’ party in favor of the REAL conservative ‘balance the budget’, ‘think before you act’ Democratic party ! ! !

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

And the beat goes oh:

Florida Recount, 2006-Style

More than 18,000 votes for a Congressional seat mysteriously disappear…

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

To Goldie (1119),

You said, “Last week’s election was mostly about the incompetence in Dubya’s management of our occupation of Iraq, as well as the bribery and corruption scandals in Congress… Dubya tried to shut down the Investigator General’s office, but the Dems are bringing it back… .” I agree. If the Democrats forget that they rule by the grace of W’s incompetence and the corruption of the Repubicans, the conservative tide will swamp the political scene in 2008. Madame Speaker has a most delicate job.

By Huge

November 13, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,” John said in the Observer newspaper’s Music Monthly Magazine. “Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.”

Duh. Ya think so Reg?

Hey “family values” neo-cons! Better go buy and burn those copies of “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road”!

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

When people don’t vote in a particular race, that isn’t a vote disappearing. I know lots of Republicans that said they were going to punish House Republicans by not voting in their races.

I can’t wait to see you holding the touchscreens up to the light to count hanging, dangling, and pregnant smudges.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

We might be able to take some of you anti-religion crusaders seriously if you didn’t constantly suck up to Islam. The only reason you call that a religion of peace is so that your head will be the last one sawed off.

By @@

November 13, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

So what’s it gonna be ml? What’s the Democrat’s plan?

FedEx Corporation - hamstringing? Economic suicide. ¿Qué?

FedEx Express - withdrawal from Iraq? A catastrophe waiting to happen. ¿Qué?

FedEx Ground - troop increase in Iraq? Could prove costly in lives & perception. ¿Qué?

FedEx Freight - train? The one that’ll hit the Dems when they try to undo all measures taken to insure national security? ¿Qué?

Time’s awastin’. I’m a conservative who saved up a supply of liberal brown stamps. The ones that come with hindsight.

Hurry, hurry, hurry. My demands will be forthcoming. Express delivery is expected. Right?

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Joe will never caucus with the GOP, now the minority party in the Senate. He’d lose too much clout. He’s having his cake and eating it too, and good for him.

Diogenes and REAL Conservatives, you are both right. Democrats won Congress with votes from moderates in both parties. See Joe Lieberman.

The neocons and religious righties were rejected by Republicans seeking a middle ground. Democrats face a similar fate if they drift too far to the left.

Time will tell.

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

To: RW (1151),

When will the American intelligence network be as effective as the British? And under what circumstances?

By rushncap

November 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

@@, Republicans keep on yakking about how the Democrats don’t have a plan for Iraq. OK, fine, so what’s Bush’s plan, huh? He’s had 2.5 years and hundreds of billions of dollars to figure out a plan that works, or, at least, shows the slightest glimmer of hope that it would work in the distant future. So far — nothing.

Here’s how the conversation about Iraq with Bush goes: “I have a Great Plan for Iraq!” “Oh? What is it?” “It’s Stay The Course.” “What course?” “The course that we’ve been staying.” “But that course has brought no stability, near civil war in parts of the country, thousands of American and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths…” “But it’s a plan!” “Sigh…”

By getalife

November 13, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

@@,

Hello.

The catastrophe has already happened.

It is called the Bush administration.

It is time for you folks to admit this disaster and jump on board with the American people to clean up his mess.

By RE

November 13, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

I Know @@, why haven’t the Dems fixed the GWB disasters yet? They are so incompetant

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

John Kerry expands his stand up routine

By rushncap

November 13, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

RW, what’s with your Lieberman obsession? Do you have a man crush on him, or something?

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Sybil,

Is this what you mean about a leftward drift?

By @@

November 13, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

O.K. fellas, rushncap/RE/getalife:

Confession time. I never liked the “Cut & Run” or “Stay the Course”, and have never used it here.

I prefer to put it this way. Do you want to “Win or Lose”?

What’s it gonna be?

I’ll have to check back though because I’m off to get my pooch groomed.

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Very funny, RE!!

Democrats gave the Bush GOP six years to come up with viable plans (and not just on Iraq and terrorism) and they failed. And were voted out.

Now the sore losers want Democrats to come up with plans now. Or yesterday. Whichever comes sooner. And they don’t formally take control of Congress for two months.

WAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

What is your obsession with me? I simply responded to Goldie.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

finch,

The Democrats have told us for that entire six years that they have a better plan, which should make it pretty easy for them to share it now. Are you admitting to us now that your party was lying all along?

By RE

November 13, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Ok, fair assesment @@.

Here is the problem as I see it. We are involved in a shooting war where the conditions for victory are not dependent upon the actions of the US military. The conditions outlined for victory rest solely with the newly formed government of Iraq.

Militarialy, this is a terrible spot to be in. There is no enemy to defeat, instead we are in the middle of a sectarian civil war. At least in Vietnam we picked a side to back, here we have not even done that.

On top of that, for philosophical reasons, many of which are valid, we are trying to reform this country with no support from the surrounding countries that have the most at stake. We are currently cooperating with no country in the region, not Iran, not Syria, not Turkey…. no one. This was poorly concieved from the start and has no attainable victory condition that US action can bring about, we are just contributing to the regions already strong anti-american sentiment and inflaming Muslim hostilities.

By reebok

November 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Today’s cartoon is mean-spirited, which is OK I guess. But it’s not funny, which is a real problem.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

By HumanisticJones November 13, 2006 09:52 AM “and he can blame the left wing panty waist party for the upcoming recession and the impending loss of Afghanistan, a sure byproduct of the Iraq cut and run”- How dare you say such unpatriotic remarks. Impending loss of Afghanistan? You obviously have no faith in our troops or your government you pinko terrorist supporter.

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the troops that the liberals are a bunch of American power hating socialists who have successfully turned public opinion against Iraq by staging a media campaign focused on the negatives of this war, 24/7, cooperating with Al Qaeda.

I know that they will focus their full, pervert attention on the next country in line once they ruin Iraq.

Guaranteed.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Speaking of which:

To make the election of 2006 a referendum on Mr. Bush and “his” war, the media knew full well they had to present that conflict in the worst possible light for as long as possible on their nightly newscasts, cable programs and front pages. Then, after force-feeding the American people a steady diet of this carnage for weeks at a time, the same media outlets would then “poll” the voters to get their impressions of Iraq and Mr. Bush. Amazingly, against the protests of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, the mainstream media stuck with this partisan plan to only showcase the negative, the misery and the gore. They ignored the pleas of these soldiers to show that not only did they liberate a nation from a genocidal tyrant, but with compassion and great decency (often at the cost of their own lives), they helped to rebuild the country and connect with its people on a much-needed human level. The good far out-numbers the bad in Iraq, but the good was the enemy of a Democratic victory on Nov. 7. Worse than becoming a public-relations arm for the Democrats, did some in the media actually aid and abet al Qaeda with their biased coverage? It has been fully documented that al Qaeda and the insurgents believe that if you kill enough American soldiers and have those deaths played on a loop by the American media, then the American people and their politicians will grow weak in the knee and call for a withdrawal

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Speaking of which:

To make the election of 2006 a referendum on Mr. Bush and “his” war, the media knew full well they had to present that conflict in the worst possible light for as long as possible on their nightly newscasts, cable programs and front pages. Then, after force-feeding the American people a steady diet of this carnage for weeks at a time, the same media outlets would then “poll” the voters to get their impressions of Iraq and Mr. Bush. Amazingly, against the protests of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, the mainstream media stuck with this partisan plan to only showcase the negative, the misery and the gore. They ignored the pleas of these soldiers to show that not only did they liberate a nation from a genocidal tyrant, but with compassion and great decency (often at the cost of their own lives), they helped to rebuild the country and connect with its people on a much-needed human level. The good far out-numbers the bad in Iraq, but the good was the enemy of a Democratic victory on Nov. 7. Worse than becoming a public-relations arm for the Democrats, did some in the media actually aid and abet al Qaeda with their biased coverage? It has been fully documented that al Qaeda and the insurgents believe that if you kill enough American soldiers and have those deaths played on a loop by the American media, then the American people and their politicians will grow weak in the knee and call for a withdrawal

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

In what way does your question relate to my 11:51?

In case it doesn’t have anything to do with that, it’s far too broad a question anyway. Do you have any specific aspects in mind?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

A London Times reporter interviewed a handful of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and asked them about their feelings regarding the changes back home. As the Times reports, “Some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by the Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr. Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.” No one yet knows just how Mr. Gates might differ from his predecessor, at least until the Baker commission’s findings on the war are revealed. But the troops’ concerns that Democrats might follow through on their campaign rhetoric and abort the mission are certainly warranted. As opposed to the glee felt in many quarters of the country following Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, the Times found a handful of troops who felt differently. Insisting that Iraq was better off than before the war, Staff Sgt. Frank Notaro said that Mr. Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what the thought was right, whether people agreed with it, like it, or not.”

By getalife

November 13, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

There is no credibility among the right unless they admit w is a disaster.

The American people admitted it when they voted. A “thumping”, if you will.

Get on board with the American people and admit it.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Huge Phony Moderate,

No, I’m not implying that you are in on the palace coup. I’m stating that Chairman Pelosi is catering to rabid Leftists who think like you, and is very foolishly taking the House sharply to the Left.

This is exactly what we we predicted would happen.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Saw SNL week before last(?). One of the “Best of Darrell Hammond” shows. Gotta admit, the Clinton years were a gold mine for comedy. So much more material than from the Bush administration. Had a few Pres Bush routines, not much new after one or two skits. Then it was back to Clinton - just one situation after another after another. Maybe there will be a silver lining in ‘08 after all.

RW - how were the wings? Saw the ‘Parade’ cover in the Sunday paper. You and Leno are in sync. Or was that you on the cover?

By Diogenes

November 13, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

TO RW (1238),

Your 1151 comment was “We might be able to take some of you anti-religion crusaders seriously if you didn’t constantly suck up to Islam. The only reason you call that a religion of peace is so that your head will be the last one sawed off.” Since this statement seems to show concern about the Jihadists, I was praisely the work of MI5 in the little round up last week, and lamenting that the American intelligence services do not seem to be quite so efficient. It was altogether a supportive statement with a specific incident to illustrate your point, “so your head will be the last one sawed off.” I confuse to having been most pleasantly impressed the Brits. I must go to shelf boosk; will return later.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

RE,

We were dealing with Turkey right up until they pulled the rug out from under us hours before the two pronged invasion was set to begin. Most of our heavy equipment was to come in from the North through Turkey. The options then were to go with air power and a lighter ground force from the South, while bringing the remaining troops and equipment around to Kuwait or to scrap the entire plan.

There were big drawbacks to either option and there was also a benefit to the light force and heavy air campaign. In any case the war would have been fought differently if Turkey wouldn’t have led us on and then back stabbed us at the 11th hour.

In your world does that mean they can be implicitly trusted now?

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

It has yet to be seen whether ole Joe will “caucus with the Democrats” as some of you trolls like to say. Certainly the Dems do not relish the lectures that Joe likes to dish out regarding who really puts this nation “in peril”:

Five years ago, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman was one of President Bush’s arch political rivals. Now many in his party complain that he sounds more like Bush’s running mate. The Connecticut Democrat’s strong public defense of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war has provided the White House with an invaluable rejoinder to intensifying criticism from other Democrats. In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a “colossal mistake” for the Democratic leadership to “lose its will” at this critical point in the war

Of rourse, after losing the primary election in August, ole Joe decided to change his tune and support a phased withdrawal of our troops…

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Note to neocons:

The MSM wasn’t the only voice accurately describing the Iraq adventure as a failure. As soon as Bush rejected his “stay the course” mantra, he joined the club.

No amount of revisionism by a rightwing newspaper that is the birdcage liner of choice for DC residents changes that.

And as much as US soldiers deserve our respect, grunts do not set policy.

By Chad Castagana

November 13, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

You libs will make us a China.

You’ve got mail.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Diogenes 12:49,

I apologize in advance, but I’m not sure I know any more about what you are asking after reading your explanation than I did before.

I think as a general rule the British use more human intelligence assets, which we have been getting back to. After Frank Church and Jimmy Carter wiped out our human intelligence we became sitting ducks. It got even worse when Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton constructed a wall to keep intelligence agencies from sharing information.

It won’t be easy as you could tell if you read back into the archives whenever a debate comes up about terrorist surveillance. The leftists here are always on the side of the terrorists if it’s between them and intelligence gathering. With Democrats in control of Congress, I sincerely hope President Bush has plenty of ink in his veto pen. He should since he never used it to control spending.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

RW - (the original) 12:49

An observation from your post - can generalize to the larger population. I take it you are conservative, yet have little hesitation to criticize the Bush administration (which bills itself as conservative - spending and such nothwithstanding) when you feel policies aren’t working. I’ve noticed the same with other conservatives and Republicans. This is also true when it comes to “walking the talk.”

I rarely see those on the left criticize leadership in the Democratic Party, except when one breaks ranks (such as Lieberman. It seems more to do with maintaining ideological purity than getting policies that work. I’ve brought up one or two glaring examples - tax “fairness” (Pelosi/Kennedy trusts), concern for working-class people (Pelosi enforcing nonunion status on her farm workers) and get - silence. Not even an explanation as to why their actions may be justified.

If any can provide a few examples I’d like to see them - in enough areas where it can be deemed a regular occurrence, not an abberation.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

If you are correct and radical Islam represents only a “small sect” of the religion of peace, why is M15 keeping watch on 1600 IslamoFascist plotters and schemers as we speak?

Why do so hordes of masked men march with Hamas and Hezbollah, calling for the destruction of Israel and the U.S.?

I really think you’re kidding yourself about how large the reach of IslamoThuggery is, and in any case the few moderates who are left are too terrified to speak up for fear of a swift and brutal retribution.

We may have not reached that point here YET, but Europe is there now. Whitewashing the problem only make it easier for them to operate.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

On a related note - NY Times article today regarding Spkr-elect Pelosi’s plan to introduce legislation requiring competition with drug pricing for Medicare. Said subtext was Republicans opposed because it would “lead to a gov’t health care program.” Gov’t spokesmen dismissed comparisons with VA, which requires competition (rather vacuous arguments, in my opinion).

I would’t be surprised to see many Republican lawmakers vote for the legislation, as they see it will keep costs down and benefit recipients.

By RE

November 13, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

RW,

Turkey did withdraw support shortly before the invasion. That was about 3 and a half years ago, and there has been no reconcilliation since. Turkey has thier own interests as a priority, and an independent kurdistan is not in thier best interests.

Iraq is bordered by Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. I can see not having invovled Iran and Syria, but we also have no support from supposed alies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. If we could not get support from those countries, we should never have gone in. Of course that is in the past, but we need them now to have any chance of pulling this together. I think this must include Iran and Syria as well, this is a problem for all countries in the region.

The mistake was to think that this could be accomplished by going it alone. (here is where you bring in Poland and thier few hundred troops).

One quality you have to give GWB is being steadfast. But the negative side to that is never admitting a mistake, or doing anything to change course. This will include losing face for the US by asking other countries for help, but it will come sooner or later, the only difference will be the amount of time and lives that are wasted in the interim

By RE

November 13, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Paul, can you wait until the newly elected democratic congress is put into place before making critisisms of them? Kinda jumping the gun on that.

So far as GOP critics coming from the conservatives here, all I have heard is that either it does not matter (pick a scandal, Foley, Abramoff, Delay, exploding federal debt), that a disaster is really a sucess (Iraq, N Korea Nukes, Iran Nuke Program) or that the Dems do it worse (again, Foley, out of control earmark spending)

I am for a smaller government and fiscal responsibility, obviously these are not GOP ideals anymore

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Paul 1:19,

I do think it’s comical that the party that drummed out Lieberman for only being 90% lefty is now completely beholden to him.

When a Democrat comes forward and says they would like to increase the minimum wage and would start by saying that the increase could not be tied to union contracts, I might listen to them. I’m generally against a minimum wage, but with our ridiculous unchecked immigration I’d be willing to entertain it as a check on that.

The problem is that Democrats are being extremely disingenuous when they discuss the issue. Very few people make minimum wage and it’s been pointed out here that many of them are teenagers from wealthy families. The real reason Democrats want it increased is because it triggers automatic raises to many union workers.

If that was off the table I believe Democrats would drop the issue in an instant.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

RE I didn’t mean it as a criticism - more as an observation. If I’m looking at it selectively I’d like to know - just seemed to me a bit of “ideological purity” at the fore. Sen Lieberman was the prime example. I recall some congressman/senator during the Clinton administration switching from Republican to Democrat, was a three-day story then it was done. One possible reason is the fracturing of principles - fiscal responsibility, etc. that have made the Republican base pretty vocal.

The other reason is no Party gets it right all the time. So, I wonder, how will the Democratic Party handle the “fall back, regroup and try again” thing.

That was a good second paragraph - to which I’d say, lots of perspectives. Some probably don’t matter much as far as running the country, (Foley was a relatively minor Congressman, appearances count, but - leadership fumbled); others do (Abramoff - illustrates lawmakers abrogating their duty - Democrats could have screamed for lobbying reform instead of screaming “gotcha”) and as far as “do it worse” - I’ve never cared for excusing bad behavior or poor performance by pointing to someone worse. Kids try that, some parents fall for it, but voters shouldn’t.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

RE,

If you’re going to insist on talking for both of us, why are you addressing your comment to me?

I will add that having the President stroll to a microphone with 140,000+ troops in the field and the hopes and dreams of millions of Iraqis hanging in the balance to say, “hey this whole deal was a mistake” is lunacy cubed.

Didn’t Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) already talk to all those countries to attempt to undermine our mission to begin with?

By Paul

November 13, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

RW - that’s the flexible attitude to which I was referring. Dick Morris had a column regarding min wage.

“Congress’s pay is indexed to increases in the cost of living, but the minimum wage is not. And whose fault is that?

In 1996, I asked President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) if they would consider accepting an indexation of the minimum wage as an alternative to the one-shot increase that eventually passed. Lott said yes. Clinton said no. Had the president agreed, the minimum wage would now be closing in on $7, not enough to live on but a lot better than its current, paltry level.

Now Hillary Clinton is attacking the administration and the Republican Congress for raising congressional pay while turning down a minimum-wage increase. But it was her husband’s desire that the minimum wage not be indexed.

The Democratic Party likes the annual fight to raise the minimum wage. It uses the issue to keep its base united, loyal … and poor.

The answer is to index the minimum wage so that it goes up with the cost of living.”

Looks like political ideology does occasionally trump politics.

Off to run some errands - late lunch. Later-

By RE

November 13, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

So your advice is to not admit to a mistake

Interesting take on it.

and what are you talking about with Jay Rockerfeller? And since when did one Senator outrank the state department?

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

RE,

I’d like to know what options you think Bush had in Iraq. Personally I think more troops should have been sent there, particularly to control the Iraqi borders, but can you imagine the outcry if that had been proposed? All the “Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam” parrots would have been hysterical.

Furthermore, the term “staying the course” is misleading. As someone who used to race sailboats, I know that following a course requires getting from point A to point B, but there are many ways to get there - long tacks, short tacks, opting to ride the current in the center or choosing to catch a breath of wind at the shore, et cetera.

I think it was clearly a huge mistake not to take Al Sadr out during the Battle of Fallujah, but that looks like an example of politics overriding what made sense militarily.

Everytime we worry about how our actions will look to the rest of the world we end up losing. We need to operate through a position of strength, not by catering to those who falsely believe that we make friends with coddling acts of political-correctness.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

RE,

Geez you go from answering for me to rapid fire questions.

a) It depends on the mistake. President Bush has said that tactics have had to be, changed often and that intelligence had been wrong. In the real world that is admitting to mistakes. What you want is for him to say that the whole war is a mistake and that would be disastrous even if it were true.

b) How many times do we have to go over this? Attempting to secretly undermine the mission doesn’t trump the State Department or the Executive Branch, or even a vote in Congress. Too bad we don’t prosecute these things anymore.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Whether a minimum wage is indexed or incremental, it still needs to be delinked from automatic raises in union contracts before an honest discussion can take place.

By RE

November 13, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

“I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course”

In your view, that undermined the mission? In your view these countries would have contributed militarily to Iraq if Rockerfeller did not say that. Kind of a stretch isn’t it?

BD,

Good statement

“I think it was clearly a huge mistake not to take Al Sadr out during the Battle of Fallujah, but that looks like an example of politics overriding what made sense militarily.”

and I agree with you, the problem is that this is all political so far as any victory condition that has been outlined. If we were to take out Al Sadr tomorrow, Maliki is weakened, not strengthened. He is supported by all these factions, he cannot rule without them. No military option will create a stable government. It is all political now. That is the biggest problem, we are in a shooting war where no matter how many people we shoot, it still does nothing to establish the government.

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Maybe Dubya would’ve had more support for his war policies if ANYONE in his family had made some sort of personal sacrifice — but alas, it was all empty rhetoric, yes?

Spotted at Saturday’s Yale-Princeton game in New Haven: Barbara Bush ‘04, in top form.

By Guess Who's Back In Charge

November 13, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

In her remarks, Hillary Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and improving the image of the United States abroad (Yay!!.) She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year. “Health care is coming back,” Clinton warned, adding, “It may be a bad dream for some.”

Average Joe: Doctor, I’m sick.

Doctor: I can see you in 6 months at 2:00 p.m.

Average Joe: 6 months, I’ll be dead by then!!

Doctor: That’ll work, If you miss your appointment, I’ll get at least 9 holes of golf in that afternoon.

Average Joe: Why can’t you see me now?

Doctor: I’ve got 450 illegal aliens in front of you, haven’t you heard about the new amnesty plan, sucker?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

The 527 Media — those political activists such as the NYT who pose as newsmen while producing campaign ads for liberals — think they should get the credit for winning the election, and they’re mostly right. They want — in return — high drama on your wide screens and front pages, serious-looking Democrats chairing Congressional investigative hearings to rival Watergate, shaming Dubya, Dick and Don before the public. Oh, but Don isn’t going to be around for the show.

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

There’s no doubt that al-Sadr is a loose cannon. If he died tomorrow, I would not be upset.

But any discussion about taking out al-Sadr during the battle of Fallujah needs a serious reality check.

Fallujah is a Sunni stronghold some 60 miles west of Baghdad.

al-Sadr is the milita commander in Baghdad’s Sadr City, a Shia stronghold.

The Marines could never have killed al-Sadr during the Fallujah siege, because he wasn’t there.

Anyone who confuses Shia and Sunni elements in the Iraq conflict is showing their ignorance of the situation.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

RE,

Listen jacka-ss, don’t change what I said just so that you can call it a stretch.

By RE

November 13, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

ok, how did that secretly undermine the mission then?

By Goldie

November 13, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Oh well— so much for “caucusing with the Democrats”:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats

By getalife

November 13, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Reading the right wing sites, I see too much whining.

Be humble, you lost.

Minimum wage will pass.

We will withdraw from Iraq.

We will not attack Iran.

We will have accountabilty to right the wrongs.

Get over it losers.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

RE,

Telling Syria in advance that the President had decided to go to war with Iraq is a normal thing for top Democrat on the intelligence community is a good thing???

How about getting WMD moved, setting up safe houses and an insurgency? Syria tipping off Iran to do the same, so that once we knocked off Saddam they could start a civil war and get us to leave so that they could take over? Placing conventional weapons in various parts of the country for later use making IED’s? All the while killing off a few Americans for sport.

It looks like Rockefeller’s plan is working quite well. Only Democrats and their useful idiot followers would figure out how to lose a war that hadn’t even started and vote to allow it to go on. Then blame the people that are trying to fight.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

It took the vicious liberals less then a week to turn the knives on themselves:

After five days of giddiness, Democrats express dismay that their new House leader has thrown herself into the fight to become her Number 2, creating a potentially lose-lose situation where she could either be defeated in her first public contest since the election, or brand herself as a dove.

What a bunch of animals.

No wonder they want everyone to STFU it interferes with thier ability to scheme on each other.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Let me fix this:

RE,

Telling Syria in advance that the President had decided to go to war with Iraq is a normal thing for the top Democrat on the intelligence committee is a good thing???

By Dusty

November 13, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

I hope Joe Lieberman does get uncomfortable with the Democrats. He will make a good Republican; honest, ethical and hard working.

Welcome to the good side, Joe.

By Midori

November 13, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Andy,

this one’s for you

Gawd!! you go on and on and on and say absolutely NOTHING.

You see, the people came together and saved America from morons like you. They, as well as I, have had enough of your division, stupefying stupid finger pointing and time travel musings, and outright hypocrisy and ignorance.

Put a freakin sock in it.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Sen Rockefeller just followed the example of Sec of State Albright. Only distinction was, she was involved in a law enforcement op, Sen R knew it was war.

getalife 3:45 re: Iran. Maybe, maybe not. The implications if we do will be tremendous, if we don’t, possibly worse. We will have all new examples of “asymetrical warfare.” BTW - pertinent example from an old Newsweek from the 80’s - in every war game positing Soviet forces pouring thru the Fulda Gap and on into western Europe, it was always the civilians (in these games, were top gov’t people, academicians, corporate types, etc) called for tac nukes. Military participants urged “no.” When things escalated in many unforseen ways it was the civilians who said “oh my …..”

If we don’t, and if it appears Iran will demonstrate the capability, don’t count out Israel. Would rather be like Mexico developing nukes, with a head of state screaming the US needs to be wiped out, lands reclaimed, and the weapons were soon at hand to make it a reality. Oh yeah, and if the Mexican government did it, Quetzalcoatl’s returned would be hastened and a new world would ensue.

By Midori

November 13, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Honest?

Ethical?

Hard working?

no wonder you reality-challenged morons lost.

Thank God the country has kicked your delusional rears to the curb, and rejected your obtuse nonsense.

I wonder: do all of you have drug dependence problems?

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Sybil Bon Finch,

My, my how “condescending” you sound!

The Coalition Authority issued an arrest warrant for Al Sadr at the same time as the Battle of Fallujah.

I said he should have been killed DURING not AT the Battle of Fallujah.

By RE

November 13, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Wow RW, you left out the Unicorns and Santa in your little fantasy scenario.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Heal thyself physician:

By Midori November 13, 2006 04:16 PM Andy, this one’s for you Gawd!! {{{{{{{you go on and on and on and say absolutely NOTHING.}}}}}}}}} You see, the people came together and saved America from morons like you. They, as well as I, have had enough of your division, stupefying stupid finger pointing and time travel musings, and outright hypocrisy and ignorance. Put a freakin sock in it.

We listened to you raggedy bitc-hes whine and bawl for 6 solid years, now I’m just supposed to go the F away, STFU and put a sock in it?

Get real.

It’s time to dawg you degenerates every step of the way.

You ain’t seen the first of it, you skank.

Enjoy it.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I bet Lieberman is being offered all kinds of things behind the scenes right now by both parties.

Anybody running for office should run screaming if Kos ever shows up to support them.

By Scooby Snacks

November 13, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Rutt Row! Midori’s talking to herself again.

By RE

November 13, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Another General says we had no plan for post war Iraq

By rushncap

November 13, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

@@, other than nice, simple, meaningless terms like “win” or “lose”, what exactly are you talking about? Do I want to “win” in Iraq? I dunno… what the hell does it mean to “win” or “lose” there? I know what it means to win in chess, checkers, soccer, debate, or a host of other things. But saying “I want to win in Iraq” is about as precise as saying “I am against bad things”.

The President has absolutely no plan, none, to deal with that country. He has plenty of meaningless platitudes, whole stockpiles of them, but no actual plan. He keeps hovering in the never-neverland that has spawned the famous “$#it or get off the pot” expression: with neither enough troops to crush the insurgency and establish a stable, repressive military dictatorship nor with enough guts to pull out altogether and leave the country to a civil war with no real end in sight. Unfortunately his enlightened leadership has left precious few other alternatives.

By LMAO

November 13, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

33%-LMAO.

I mean-LMAO

I mean-Pathetic.

Thats the size of Bush in Mikes cartoons. 33%.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Another veteran thinks RE is an idiot:

Ray Smith, an Army Vietnam War veteran who runs the JROTC program at Mission High School, said that he and other former soldiers believe that the military cannot abandon the mission in Iraq. “Rumsfeld never should have been in charge, but now we can either run like cowards or we can stay until we get the job done,” Smith said. “Even though it was a bad idea in the first place, we have to try to get back our credibility in the world … all we can do is try.”

Opinion’s are like RE’s, er, I mean as-sholes.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

RE 4:49: Of course. Even if they had gone into the standard Phase IV it wouldn’t have made much difference. That’s what gets me when I hear all the “we should have put in more troops” - that’s a numbers count. The question is - and do what? Putting a heavier lid on a pressure cooker doesn’t mean it won’t explode. Military doesn’t do political reconstruction and nationbuilding. State Dept wasn’t involved. Assumptions (people would establish a gov’t - not revert to tribal mentality) were wrong.

Key point in the interview you linked is that his “boss” was not up to CENTCOM - it was Chairman of the JCS AF General Myers. Here’s a link to a recent Jim Lehrer interview. You can read between the lines - and see a reason why we are where we are today.

Link:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/myers_7-12.html

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

By rushncap November 13, 2006 04:50 PM @@, other than nice, simple, meaningless terms like “win” or “lose”, what exactly are you talking about? Do I want to “win” in Iraq? I dunno… what the hell does it mean to “win” or “lose” there?

Talking points boy: Quick, who “won” the American Revolutionary War, huh, huh?

By RE

November 13, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

From Daily Kos, supporting a dem in a runoff election against Jefferson in LA. seems pretty responsible

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Apparently George Soros’ group, CREW, isn’t real happy with Pelosi for backing one of their 20 most corrupt members of Congress for majority leader

Better fire off a nasty letter, getalife.

By RE

November 13, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

I know who won the American Revolution!

The native population won the revolution against the foriegn power.

It tends to work that way

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

The Indians won the Revolutionary War?

By RE

November 13, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

Hey Paul,

The problem is that I think the administration actually believed all the rosy assesments “we will be greated as liberators” garbage. Idealism is a great thing, but you have to be realistic when going into something like war…Hope should not be what you rely on.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

By RE November 13, 2006 05:18 PM I know who won the American Revolution! The native population won the revolution against the foriegn power.

Gosh, RE:

1) The Indians “won” the American Revolutionary war??

2) The whole point of rushncrap’s talking points post was the silly a-ss democrat idea that “winning” is some unacheivable abstract principle which, if believed, will give them cover to run from Iraq like cowards.

You just ruined their as-sinine theory.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I’m just a chick and don’t know much about military strategy (although compared to the average Moonbat I’m a West Point Grad) but it seems to me that more troops would go a long way to keeping “insurgents” from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Al Qaeda training camps - you name it - out of Iraq long enough for them to gain enough stability to progress forward.

We could also use those extra troops to defeat Al Sadr for once and for all - if only we could get the political will to finish the job.

It would really help if the “decision makers”, which are presumably Generals, didn’t worry about how it “looks” when we win battles. See retreat from Fallujah Part 1.

Or when higher ups get involved and worry that we’re doing too good a job winning. See First Gulf War, Colin Powell (wimp) versus Gen. Schwartzkoff (General).

Victory has got to be the mission, not gaining “goodwill” - which in the short time is an impossible strategy.

By Dusty

November 13, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

What do you know?

RE knows who won the Revolutionary War!! (The terrorists will lose in Iraq!)

rushncap must not know who WON in the elections. He’s still fussin’!

Lieberman should be a Republican!! Right, RW?

Things are looking good. And now dinner is ready. That’s looking good too. I’m so lucky..

By Huge

November 13, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Your point about the pressure cooker still blowing even with a heavier lid is one of the best analogies I’ve ever hear about “the invasion”.

“Military doesn’t do political reconstruction and nationbuilding.”

And that’s why one of the failed and subsequent justifications has been “we’re exporting democracy (at the end of a rifle) to the Middle East”. Even that dubious claim is now pretty much discounted.

This gop readily falls back on these dufus assertions that if only the President had done a better job of getting his message across to the American people, blah, blah, blah.

Sometimes this administration just absolutely seems incapable, or too arrogant, to see that the American people are smarter than that and can see through even rosier explanations and endless spinning when the original message is like a sh!t sandwich without the bread.

By RE

November 13, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

nope, we pretty much slaughtered the indians. See, how it works is, a foriegn power will just about always lose control after it invades. Look back to all the lands annexed by Japan and Germany in WW2. They all returned to being independant afterwards. Afganistan in the 80s remained independant against the russians. Vietnam in th 70s remained independant against the US.

Basically, War is not always War. There are a few different types. Some are winnable, some are not.

You can have an internal revolution, like our civil war, or the revolution in Cuba, also Korea and Vietnam where two factions fight each other and eventually one becomes dominant and destroys the other side, or the country is partitioned along ideological/ ethnic/ religious lines. Here foriegn intervention never really succedes because it goes against the native population’s will.

You can have an invasion, like when Sadam invaded Kuwait. or like Germany and Japan invading other countries in WW2. Or Russia in Afganistan. That is a war where you can have foriegn intervention and be sucessful because the scope of the intervention is to go back to original borders.

So which type of war do you think we are in?

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

If this LondonYank moonbat is correct I’m surprised all you libs aren’t moving to Iran in droves

When you finish reading this I’m sure there are a few people on here that will be booking their one way trips.

Normal people will be shaking their head in wonder, so here’s something to lighten your mood back up 7 & 13 are oh so true.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

RW,

Grouchy old Getalife still can be funny sometimes! Albeit by mistake.

Next he’ll enlighten us as to how the French Revolution was to keep the Chinese from taking over Versailles.

By RE

November 13, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Oh, sorry one other scenario. Sucessful invasion, usually it requires an indefinate occupation of a country with massive slaughter of the original population followed by integration of the occuping force with the native population. This would be like Mexico and the US vs the native indians. Also this is similar to ancient conquests such as Roman, Hun, Chinese… etc. I cannot think of when this has been sucessful in modern times though

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

Huge,

For the sake of argument let’s say you’re right that it’s not possible to invade a country and set up a new government.

Why did any Democrat vote for the war? It doesn’t matter what the intelligence was right or wrong about if the situation was impossible from the beginning.

By Huge

November 13, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

“…the silly a-ss democrat idea that “winning” is some unacheivable abstract principle…”

Like last Tuesday?

By Paul

November 13, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

“Just a chick” - never “just anything.” More and more female field grade and general officers in military. With that rank comes knowledge and attitude - think female CEO (just not Hewlett Packard just now). For all we know, you could have been one - or for that matter, a brilliant 16-year-old with an attitude. One never knows on these sites.

Good point about the more troops blocking border crossings - but that type of insurgency didn’t happen right off. Yes, they could have blocked more from the border - but it’s a long and desolate place. By the time it was recognized we had our hands full. The genie was already out.

Politics always trumps military - civilian control is the hallmark - and in spite of difficulties, it’s the best (I do not use the word lightly) way to go. There has always been tension - look at Truman/MacArthur, Roosevelt with military (Europe first). But yes, sometimes we get crappy events (Fallujah).

First Gulf War - real quick - we accomplished the mandate/mission. Taking Saddam out would likely have resulted in same situation (civil chaos absent some jihadists). Destroy the Republican Guard - assist Kurds, etc - all would have been steps on the fabled slippery slope. Problem with “if onlys” is we really don’t know what the “if onlys” would result in (now the grammarians can jump in with the ending a sentence with a preposition corrections -)

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I looked in at Wooten’s and all the other comments are different from here except getalife’s. I guess he just double posts all these wild eyed rants.

At least they are short which is why we can enjoy his posts. Other leftists around here could learn that it doesn’t take 2000 words to say “Bush sucks.”

By Paul

November 13, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

RW 5:39

I skimmed the article - I’m regularly amazed at the patronizing, condescending attitude some have. Ahmadinejad makes unequivocal statements (as a head of state) regarding exterminating Israel and the author “doesn’t believe it for a minute” and goes on to say how splendidly peaceful he really is.

Lots of white powder there in Neverland.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

By RE November 13, 2006 05:39 PM nope, we pretty much slaughtered the indians. See, how it works is, a foriegn power will just about always lose control after it invades. Look back to all the lands annexed by Japan and Germany in WW2.

With America still being in Germany and Japan 61 years after we invaded, real brilliant comparison there, RE.

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

By Buy Danish - November 13, 2006 04:26 PM - My, my how “condescending” you sound! I said he should have been killed DURING not AT the Battle of Fallujah.

I didn’t mean to sound so condescending. Honest. But you could have been a bit clearer.

Back to the subject. Why would killing al-Sadr during the Fallujah battle be better than offing him some other time?

In fact, killing him then WOULD have made things worse. In addition to the bloody Fallujah siege, we would have had a bloody Sadr City siege.

Uniting warring Islamic militas against a common enemy (us) is not my idea of a peace plan.

By N-GA

November 13, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

Interesting program on TV last night. All about the occupation of Germany after WWII.

Told the story from different perspectives (Russian, US, British, & French). Explained how many German soldiers refused to give up and waged a guerilla war (bombs, shootings, etc.). Showed how each occupier dealt with these insurgents. Many were shot by firing squad (US). Some with a bullet in the head (French). Some by the German execution method - guillotine (British). The Russians just killed 200-300 citizens in retaliation. Eventually the German citizens stopped fighting and began a process of not assisting the occupiers…they simply “went along” but did not reveal any info on insurgents.

Adenauer was elected in 1949 (4 years after the war). The occupation “officially” ended 10 years after it began. At the end of the program there were comments trying to relate this experience to Iraq, but they were not particularly insightful.

By Thomas

November 13, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

HI everyone —

Gee I go away for a while and the whole world changes. grins

RW?

I don’t remember any democrat voting “FOR” a war. I do remember democrats voting for allowing military intervention (as a last ditch option), should the need arise for such actions. I point out that when you get down to it, those reasons (and that vote for authority) were abused by this administrtation.

Humanistic Jones! (Andy?) Afghanistan was lost when we quit supporting the hunt for Bin Laden in favor of an invasion of Iraq. 2 war fronts are hard to maintain by any country. I believe we will learn an even harsher lesson in tactical warfare as we watch Africa totally fall to Muslim extremist. Especially with the incursions into Chad by Sudan now. America may be technically stronger (and we are slowing in that area as well), but people in this country forget just how many more muslims there are in the world as compared to us (much fewer) Christains. We can only do so much in the world, and to continue to over-extend and waste military resources in places like Iraq will cost us dearly when we end up in fights with the bigger threats.

Cheers & Beers Thomas

By @@

November 13, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

RE:

I’m in real quick and then gone again.

When did your mind become so closed or selective of possibilities such as this? I’m willing to accept the absence of WMD’s in Iraq, but open to the likehood that they were relocated to neighboring countries.

If you see this ^^^ as a fairytale, then I’ve gonna have to start seeing you as a Tinkerbell. All lit up and flying through the stratosphere.

Did you listen to the audio on your CBS link? I heard a testimonial of the general expectations of war & support of most, not all, tactics that were used. I don’t really have time to elaborate on what I think could have been done differently. I am pretty much in agreement with Danish, but even with those changes, there exists the possibility of unforeseen consequences.

Afterall, wars can’t exist without opposition. Is one going on in your head right now? Native Americans won the American Revolution?

Why do you keep linking to Kos? Really…I gave you credit for being more intelligent than that. Do you also visit Huffington’s, where the inexplicable Arianna replied “Who cares.” when told that men, women & children were dying at the hands of Saddam and the insurgents.

Eeeeeeewwww RE, just eeeeeewwwwww!

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I think taking out the Revolutionary Guard and helping the Kurds would have gone a long way to gaining respect (which is not the same thing as goodwill).

RW,

That Kos link to the Useful Idiot is amazing!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry:

{{Now, the usual crowd can be expected to comment on women, gays and political dissidents as being targets for repression in Iran. Without minimising the issues, I’m not convinced that the case isn’t overstated and that the repression isn’t outweighed by wider social advances. Women and children rarely suffer the isolation, poverty and violence in Iran that so many suffer from family breakdown in America. Women in Iran are now universally educated, taking 65 percent of university places, marrying later, having fewer children, and driving social change. Even Iran has a vibrant gay subculture.}}

I’ve been saying from the beginning that other than Socialism, the only cause the Left really cares about is Gay Rights. Everything else (like Iraq) is just a way to weaken the established order.

Bring on the Burkas! We don’t care as long as we can marry our boyfriends!

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 06:18 PM | Link to this

By Buy Danish - November 13, 2006 05:33 PM - Paul, It seems to me that more troops would go a long way to keeping “insurgents” from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Al Qaeda training camps - you name it - out of Iraq long enough for them to gain enough stability to progress forward.

I realize this question isn’t for me but I feel compelled to respond.

What evidence is there that extremists from Syria, Jordan, etc are streaming into Iraqi training camps?

Little to none, as far as I can determine. I’m sure the various insurgents from all sides are getting cash and weapons from foreign entities. The Saudis want the Sunnis, Iran wants the Shia, and so on.

But the bodies turning up every morning are all Iraqis… killed by other Iraqis.

What we’re dealing with in Iraq is a civil war. Better border security would be nice, but the US can’t even secure the Mexico border. Secure Iraq’s borders? Dream on.

Coming up: What Dick Cheney said about Iraq.

By rushncap

November 13, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Congratulations, Dusty. You finally learned how to make Ramen?

And Dusty, just because you can say who won A war does not mean that you can say who won EVERY war, skirmish, conflict, etc. For example, who “won” the war between Native Americans and white people? Depends on how you define “winning”. If you define it as “who wiped the other race off the face of the Earth”, then sure, white people won. But I do know who lost that war. All of us.

For all your skating around, you still fail to define what “win in Iraq” means. I’d ask you why, but I already know the answer. You have no idea what it means. You just like the way it sounds: so soothing, so nice, so meaningless, so comfortable.

By Huge

November 13, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

“Why did any Democrat vote for the war? It doesn’t matter what the intelligence was right or wrong about if the situation was impossible from the beginning.”

That, my friend, is a question only they can answer.

I have stated here before I felt that in most cases it was to save their political careers.

If that is true, there is not much real difference between them and the gop apparatchiks who voted without exception to let W have his way.

As for those who have since “seen the light” and now regret their vote, I’m not sure what to make of that. Political expediency now that the American tide has rightfully turned? Or a sincere admission of a mistake?

Ironically at least 4 of the 9 gop senators who voted in favor of giving W the go ahead, and up for re-election last week lost. None of the 5 democrats did.

By N-GA

November 13, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

RW,

You posted: “Why did any Democrat vote for the war? It doesn’t matter what the intelligence was right or wrong about if the situation was impossible from the beginning.”

Damn good question…really. Each individual may have had different reasons. Some examples:

But I think you should not use the phrase “vote for the war”, because they only voted to give GWB the authority to go to war.

And @@…if you are open to the possibility that there were no WMD’s, then I’m open to the possibility that they were shipped out. But I also hope you are open to Paul O’Neill’s statements that Iraq was a topic of virtually every cabinet meeting since GWB took office. He was selected by GWB for the cabinet, vetted by the GOP, then marginalized for writing a book about what he heard behind closed doors. So here we have what I would call credible testimony about the administration’s “state of mind” before we attacked Iraq. What do you think?

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 06:27 PM | Link to this

The politics of convenience, courtesy of our Vice President.. via George Will:

Shortly after the (1991 Persian Gulf War), the secretary of defense then, Dick Cheney, said why arguments for “going to Baghdad” had been “fallacious.”

“Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it,” he told the New York Times. “It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

If Dick knew now what he knew then (or at least knew it 3 years ago), maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess, and George Bush would still have a GOP Congress.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Why do you always tell us that you are going, gone, or have been gone when you never leave?

Trust me, one of your posts is enough to foul the air in here for at least a week.

Here. Spin it all you want, but it’s a resolution authorizing war, or are you telling us Democrats are too stupid to know what that meant too? God help us with the illiterate “we were tricked” party in charge.

Buy Danish,

I had to keep checking to make sure my browser hadn’t switched me to a South Beach travel guide in the middle of that “Iran is paradise” story.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

By Huge November 13, 2006 06:24 PM “Why did any Democrat vote for the war? I have stated here before I felt that in most cases it was to save their political careers.

So they voted to get America into a war that they knew was “wrong” so that they could save their political careers?

What courage, what bravery.

That’s real strong leadership for ya.

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Andy & Buy Granny,

Last week you seemed to have a difficult time wrapping your atrophied brains around the idea of agnosticism. So I have included a brief explanation here in two parts for you two and for @@, RW, Honu, et al.:

Agnostic: One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists; a person who believes that nothing is known about the existence of God or about things outside of the human experience.

All people, myself included, would like to believe that there is some sort of life after death, some greater power, some larger purpose to the universe. While science can point us to many of the origins of the greatest questions of existence, it has not yet been able to answer the greatest: Why is there something rather than nothing?

This is simply not knowable in the current realm of human existence. Anyone who pretends to know is a charlatan and a liar, especially priests, preachers, mullahs, etc. who try to convince others of something they in truth have no knowledge of.

But do not mistake me, just because there is a possibility of some sort of divinity does not make yours right. On the contrary, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally false. Any ideology that states that it is the word of God, the absolute truth, and completely infallible, must be all of those things exactly, and if not, then it is none of those things. The contradictions, inaccuracies, immorality, and untrue claims of the Bible and the Koran are definitive proof that neither is what it claims to be. You know this already, although you prefer not to admit it.

Science has disproven many of the claims in those books. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the universe does not revolve around it. Life was not created in an instant from a lump of dirt. A man cannot simply float through the atmosphere straight into heaven.

Continued-

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

-Continuation

But more importantly, common sense disproves the claims in both. Did Noah airlift polar bears, ship bison from America, and collect and load all the animals from earth on a single boat? Even the least intellectual among us would see this as absurd. Can advice on how to sell your daughter into slavery be from a moral God? Do you really think a woman could have a baby without the help of intercourse or science? That’s just plain silly. What fused with the egg? Would any of you women care to explain that one? As for Islam, if Jesus was a prophet but not God, wouldn’t that make him a liar and therefore disqualify him as a prophet?

Judaism is also patently incorrect, but far less offensive because despite what the Old Testament says, Jews’ recent goals have not been to convert everyone, nor to wipe all non-believers off the face of the earth.

I have some admiration for the tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism, but neither of those belief systems can substantiate their assertions either, certainly not to the point of claiming to be the one and only truth.

In addition, Atheists also cannot be seen as completely rational, because they cannot disprove the existence of God. So I am not saying that God cannot exist. What I’m saying is that YOUR God does not exist. All evidence, and most importantly, evidence from your own holy books, says he doesn’t. You know this as well, but choose not to acknowledge it.

My resentment towards your position stems from the fact that the proponents of your ideology seek to erase the line between church and state, and impose false beliefs on others through the use of government. This is not the American way. By being in opposition to you, I am the one who is adhering to the spirit this country was founded under. You have just been told the truth.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish Fair point about the Revolutionary Guards. But as you remember the pics of the “highway of death” and the PR concerns (very real) with the idea of airpower taking out retreating soldiers then broadcasting the images around the world - well, it’s not like WWII anymore. I’m still not convinced we’ve adapted well in that regard. Opponents are - look what Israelis got hit with in the propaganda dept. in Lebanon.

For more insights of plight on women in Arab states, try this Egyptian’s site:

Link:http://sandmonkey.org/

The analysis on London sex crimes increasing as Moslem population increases would sure get shouted down in this country (don’t confuse me with data - you just shouldn’t say such things!).

bon scott: if one doesn’t zero in on the countries listed, there have been numerous reports (excuse me for not providing, I’m still slogging through work and am getting a tad hungry) of foreign fighters - separate from the Sunni-Shia squads causing so much destruction. I believe it’s tapered off the past year - hopefully because many of the foreign fighters are dead.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

Huge,

I think your count is off just a touch. One Democrat that voted for the war lost in the primary, but won back his seat as an Independent. So Republicans held 5 seats that met your criteria and the Democrats held 4.

.

.

Now this is when RE should chime in and tell me I’m really stretching it.

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

RW,

You were right about one thing. With Democrats ruling both the House and Senate there is no longer a need for the “Dissent” part of my name. We will now dictate the direction of this nation, beginning with immensely popular measures for the middle class- raising the minimum wage, lowering prescription drug costs, bringing our troops home, and opposing your asinine president and ideology.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

N-GA,

Please put the entire assumption from Huge into that if you’re going to make a feeble attempt at answering. The assumption is that there was never any way to win this or any war where you invade and change government. It also IS NOT my assumption. We just did it in Afghanistan and while there are still bloody skirmishes and will be a long time to come, the government there is reasonably stable.

The rest of your drivel is just silly Democrat spin. The Democrats only use all that obfuscation to claim they didn’t really know what they were voting for and if that’s true they have no business being in a position to make these decisions.

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

OotMV,

Why the hell would I care what your religious beliefs or lack thereof are? Have you ever once seen me ask or base any argument I’ve ever made here on religion?

By Huge

November 13, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

“So they voted to get America into a war that they knew was “wrong” so that they could save their political careers?”

Sadly, I think so. Of course, none of us can really know what was in their heart of hearts, but when it comes to professional politicians, I don’t put much past them to stay in power…

RW,

You’re right about Lieberman’s resurrection, but nonetheless, the people of Connecticut remained in his corner.

And Chaffee who was considered a democrat in disguise, but a supporter of W’s war, lost!

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Paul, there’s certainly been a foreign influence in Iraq beyond money in the past.

That sociopathic Jordanian Zarqawi comes to mind. Glad he’s dead.

But there’s little evidence of any large foreign presence (outside of the US and Britain) there today.

If there were, you can bet that the White House and the Pentagon, not to mention the Limbaughs and O’Reillys, would make this development unavoidable.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

By One of the Majority’s Wankers November 13, 2006 06:34 PM While science can point us to many of the origins of the greatest questions of existence, it has not yet been able to answer the greatest: Why is there something rather than nothing?

If you can’t find an earthly reason as to why we are here maybe you should look to the Heavens, no?

The contradictions, inaccuracies, immorality, and untrue claims of the Bible and the Koran are definitive proof that neither is what it claims to be. You know this already, although you prefer not to admit it. Science has disproven many of the claims in those books. The earth is not 6,000 years old and the universe does not revolve around it.

As I have stated before, the Bible is an interpretation of God’s Word translated for us by humans. It is our best understanding of the things that have been shown to us, things that we cannot even begin to comprehend.

Again, it goes back to the same reasoning, I am comfortable with my Faith, why are you so uncomfortable with my Faith? And so disquieted with yours?

You got a feeling in your heart that you can’t explain, don’t you?

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

Sybil,

I didn’t say that Al Qaeda were coming IN to IRAQI training camps - they are coming FROM them.

As for the timing of taking out Al Sadr, what about the bloody Najaf seige?

Stalker Boy,

It would be fine if you stuck with being an agnostic. No one would give an FFF. The problem is that you, Huge, Elton John and others are intent on destroying Judeo-Christian faith and every vestige of it in our institutions.

That requires not only totalitarian censorship, but also the re-writing of history. Very Talibanesque attitude, Stalker Boy.

Like RW said, Iran is looking like a great place for you all.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

By One of the Majority’s Wankers November 13, 2006 06:35 PM My resentment towards your position stems from the fact that the proponents of your ideology seek to erase the line between church and state, and impose false beliefs on others through the use of government. This is not the American way. By being in opposition to you, I am the one who is adhering to the spirit this country was founded under. You have just been told the truth.

Welcome to America, sweetheart:

The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible.

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

You’re in the wrong country, dude.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

OoMVoD For one who doesn’t want others to impose (6:35) you’re pretty quick to dictate (6:45).

By RW-(the original)

November 13, 2006 07:02 PM | Link to this

Huge,

Chafee voted against the war, so I think you can pin that more on the Rhode Island voters deciding that they were represented by a Democrat anyway so they may as well put one in with a D.

I’m convinced that if Chafee had won and the Senate was 50/50 he would have pulled a Jim Jeffords and given the Democrats control anyway.

By Buy Danish

November 13, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Rushncap sure does seem unwilling to commit to the concept of victory, doesn’t he!

Paul,

The plight of women in the suburbs of Paris and London is more worrisome to me right now than what goes on in the Arab world, or in places like Afghanistan.

Europe, because it cannot sustain its population, has imported a culture that is overtaking it; the other has always been repressive, so there’s really nothing new there.

The muslimization of Europe is the immediate concern. Stay tuned for Huge to call me a bigot.

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

Buy Granny,

No, if you would have read correctly you would have discerned that it is you and your clan who would be more at home in the theocratic Iran. It would take very little or no adjustment in either your religious or political beliefs. Since the logic behind Christianity and Islam is essentially the same (a complete lack of logic), you would fit in well there.

My progressive liberals will stay here and direct our government. If you hadn’t noticed, the voters of this country just gave us a mandate. Pack your bags, Granny.

Andy,

Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking if you thought there was anything uncomfortable in my statement. You should try coming up with some better rationalizations about why your bible is so wrong, instead of just saying over and over that you believe it simply because you’re retarded.

By Paul

November 13, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish 6:53

Some haven’t figured out, yet alone acknowledged, the difference between “spirituality” and “religion.”

By bon scott

November 13, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

By Buy Danish - November 13, 2006 06:53 PM - I didn’t say that Al Qaeda were coming IN to IRAQI training camps - they are coming FROM them.

I have seen no evidence that Iraq is exporting terrorists. In fact, recent plots uncovered by authorities in Britain and the Persian Gulf appear to involve genuine Al Qaeda types from Pakistan and Afghanistan, not the dubious ones in Iraq.

If you have news to the contrary, my eyes are open.

As for the timing of taking out Al Sadr, what about the bloody Najaf seige?

Ummm…. what about it? al Sadr wasn’t there, either.

See you tomorrow.

By Huge

November 13, 2006 07:12 PM | Link to this

“The problem is that you, Huge, Elton John and others are intent on destroying Judeo-Christian faith and every vestige of it in our institutions.”

No, nutbag, not destroying it. Just undoing the damage it has brought to humanity and minimalizing it’s ability to do much more and much worse in the future. To me, it is no different than Islam.

Until the religious powers stop this endless “my god can kick your god’s a*”, taking the rest of us along for the ride, I’ll do everything in my power to finding the truth through reason and science; not voodoo and madness.

So say a prayer for me, hypocrite…

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Andy,

If you had read any actual Puritan literature you would realize that they were loons on the order of scientologists. The fact that you look to them as shining examples of your “America” is telling. They hung witches, or in other words innocent people who townspeople had beefs with. They also began the genocide perpetrated upon the Indians, wiping out almost 98% of them over the next couple hundred years. On second thought, that does sound like your kind of Christianity to me.

Buy Granny,

I step in for Huge and call you a bigot. And I’ll add that you’re a traitorous, 47 year-old, unemployed, do-nothing hag. In other words, a model Republican.

By One of the Majority's Voices

November 13, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Paul,

The difference is dumb and dumber.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 13, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

By One of the Majority’s Wankers November 13, 2006 07:06 PM Andy, Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking if you thought there was anything uncomfortable in my statement.

Then why do you continue to go on and on about Christianty if it “doesn’t bother you?”

You sense Someone watching your every move?

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Sybil,

Let me try that again. There are terrorists coming INTO Iraq from AL QAEDA training camps…elsewhere.

As for Najaf, my point is that he needed to be taken out a very long time ago. Najaf was the work of his militia under his leadership as their “General”.

You won’t cry when he’s dead, but there doesn’t seem to be a good time to off him.

?????