Mike Luckovich

By George

January 10, 2007 07:58 AM | Link to this

Watching the President’s Iraq Speech: A Diagnostic Guide

It might be useful to have a diagnostic checklist — things we should to be looking for during the speech to help us evaluate where the president currently stands on the “I’m a fried egg” delusion continuum.

Here are some of the key symptoms of “false or irrational beliefs maintained despite clear evidence to the contrary” we should be looking out for:

Does he display clear indications of denial, continuing to use words like “victory,” “win,” and “stable democracy”? Does he avoid using the phrase “civil war”?

When he repeatedly talks about “sacrifice” does he skip over the fact that this doesn’t include me and you, and over 99 percent of Americans?

Does he exhibit signs of the classic layman’s definition of insanity: repeatedly doing the same thing but expecting a different result?

Look to see if he trots out strategies that have already failed time and time again and acts like he expects them to have a different outcome.

By George

January 10, 2007 07:58 AM | Link to this

Be on particular alert for mentions of a new Baghdad security plan, and see if they are accompanied by any reference to the five previous such plans, all of which have failed to curb the chaos.

And keep an eye open for even the slightest acknowledgment that throughout the war the military has repeatedly carried out troop surges of more than 20,000 and the bloodshed in Iraq has continued to increase.

Does the patient — I mean, the president — demonstrate magical thinking, signs of a belief that merely wishing for something can make it so?

For example, when he talks about sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq, does he acknowledge the reality that military commanders have told him they don’t have the troops available to deploy more than 9,000 soldiers?

Does he appear cognizant of the fact that in order to come up with even 20,000 troops the military would have to remobilize reserves, extend current tours of duty, give new units dangerously little time to train, shorten the amount of time between tours for troops returning home, and leave America even less able to deal with any new security threat?

Does he continue to make the claim that we’re fighting them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here…even though there isn’t a shred of evidence that the war in Iraq has made us safer, and a great deal of evidence that it has, in fact, had the opposite effect?

Does he continue to irrationally link the war in Iraq to 9/11, as Tony Snow did on Monday when he claimed the president “understands there is a lot of public anxiety” about the war, but that the American people “don’t want another September 11.”

Does he admit that the new top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Odierno said that even with a troop surge, it could take another “two or three years” for our troops to get the upper hand in Iraq?

Does he explain where the $100 billion in additional war funds he will be asking Congress for next month is going to come from, or do you get the sense that he believes it will come from the exact same place the additional troops will come from?

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 10, 2007 08:11 AM | Link to this

Great Post George!

By Edwin Williams

January 10, 2007 08:37 AM | Link to this

You got one sort of right this time Mike. You’re right because it is too bad we live in a society where it has become popular to air dirty laundry with pride! Your hero Bill Clinton showed us the way!

By George

January 10, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this

Well I have to admit that there have times that I have had some magical thinking “merely wishing for something can make it so”, like the election in 2000, but then again I’m not in charge of many thousands of troops sending them off to battle because I wish the world were different.

Oh and it was Albert Einstein who defined Insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

I can’t read the button on the guy’s jacket (Mark Mc???) so the cartoon makes no sense to me, but whatever it’s supposed to mean, it’s in poor taste and any criticism of ML is “Richly Deserved”.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 08:56 AM | Link to this

OOHHH great post Georgie Girl……Did you notice when you HACKED IN to spam the blog with your defeatist manifesto that the cartoon was about a juiced baseball player? Not only that, but the cartoon is ridiculous because Mark McGuire was rightfully snubbed by the BBWA and he’s never said he did anything wrong so he wouldn’t be accepted by a rehab program either.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

Sheesh, now Georgie Girl is arguing with her own spam job. Maybe somebody does need to visit the Betty Ford Clinic.

GG, How about that part of your surrender now report that says there is plenty of evidence that we are being constantly attacked here at home? I even turned to PMSNBC and couldn’t find that evidence.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

George,

Re-electing stone-cold traitors like Ted Kennedy defines insanity to me.

He’s also another one who will never make it into rehab for the reason RW outlined above^^^.

By Grading Luckovich

January 10, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

I’m jealous of Luckovich this morning. I didn’t see this one at all. Bravo, sir! Substance abuse hall of fame. Coming on the heels of McGuire being Pete Rosed by baseball! (hosed + pete rose’d).

There’s another editorial cartoon in the AJC today that shows the 101st congress as an electrical surge protector. Very clever. Wish I had thought of that one too.

The best “Bush reads the mail” cartoon was the “You may already be a terrorist” bit. Jealous here. Very jealous.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 10, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Pretty much one of the greatest quotes ever

By @@

January 10, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this

That’s an iddy bitty button on a very big man ml. I can’t read it. PoliFore says it has something to do with sports?

I’m not into sports.

Is it a sport for you to make fun of alcoholism?

Anyhoo, George changed the subject of the cartoon. Came through the door firing at Bush and his proposal for winning in Iraq. Jumped the gun, so to speak. Bush hasn’t even put forth his proposal, but it’s already a target for her bullets?

I liked this analysis:

The truth is that there can be no political solution until someone establishes a clear military predominance in Iraq generally and Baghdad in particular. Neither Sunni nor Shiite politicians will reach compromises if they are certain to be murdered by the militias of extremists on their own side. Peace and stability require both a military and a political solution — but the political rests on the military one rather than vice versa.

What are the powerful reasons for risking these dangers? If the Democrat leaders were put on a truth serum and asked why we should leave Iraq, they would probably reply “because we have lost.” If America and its allies have lost, however, then who has won?

They cannot answer that question. for a good reason. No one has won as yet. No one is actually winning unless it is the United States. So why surrender?

“They cannot answer that question for a good reason.”

It’s their inability to reason I guess.

By Andy

January 10, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

RW’s self-basting turkey talk serves as the perfect foil to Buy Danish’s coy ploy-by-ploy commentary about the intrigue she imagines is happening on this blog.

Buy Danish, you are being played by your own aliases and fellow trolls. Some have turned on you because you post the same thing all day long for months and months. Others have realized that you’re just a blogged-out simple-simon who has become as addicted to blogging as Mark McGuire was to steroids.

You want to blog badly. You need to blog badly. You blog badly. Your opinion is like your bunghole, it reaks of onion stuffing spoonfed by that pith-wit, (without pith or wit), to wit he’s a twit in a snit: RW.

Dont allow RW to make such a fool of you, Buy Danish. Have a pinch of self respect.

And I think it’s a damn shame.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

PPL,

Great link to Google mail at 9:31 - and one of those annoying ones that you can’t get out of either without shutting down the page and starting all over.

By @@

January 10, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

PoliFore a/k/a Andy:

Who is running the projector here?

Your image is distorted.

Zoom in for a close up. A clearer image of yourself.

YOU ARE the “iddy bitty” button.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

@@,

I think I found a picture of PoFo at the Star Bar.

The one in the green shirt and glasses.

Whatcha eating, PoFo?

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish - My apologies. I forgot how quirky GMail can be. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Here is a better link to pretty much one of the greatest quotes ever

By RFV

January 10, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Only a few hours after being sworn in, Democrats passed legislation that would finally bring an end to the culture of corruption and ensure honest leadership started on day one of the new Congress. Delivering on what we promised in Speaker Pelosi’s “100 Hour Plan” shows the American people that Democrats are prepared to be an effective governing majority.

Isn’t it incredibly wonderful dealing with politicians who actually DO what they said they would do?

By RFV

January 10, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Republican Contract with America- On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; LIARS!

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; LIARS!

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; LIARS!

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; LIARS!

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; LIARS!

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; LIARS!

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; LIARS!

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. LIARS!

Doesn’t it ‘Mark Foley’ suck dealing with politicians who DO NOT do what they said they would do?

And THAT is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats DO what they promise, Republicans LIE to get elected, then they cover their LIES up with smear/scare propoganda, then they LIE some more!

Which set of VALUES do you want your children to learn?

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 10, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Defeatist?

Surrender?

That dead horse is definitely still dead. Deceased. A horse no more. The late equine. Post Mortem Pony.

It’s really more than merely dead, it really most sincrely dead.

When we make an error and correct it it is not surrender. When we screw up and we fix it or back away for someone more qualified to fix it, it is not defeat. A great big part of being wise is having the character to admit mistakes. And you know it is all about character.

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish:

That was PoliFore at the StarBar?

Upon further review, I think I found the inspiration for his name.

It’s penis envy. It’s the “corkscrewed pointy thing” he’s trying to make.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

RFV,

Advisor to Sen. Kerry, LIAR!, and thief!

By Paul

January 10, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

RFV at 1028

“Isn’t it incredibly wonderful dealing with politicians who actually DO what they said they would do?”

According to Democratic spokespersons, they swept to victory in large part because of Iraq. Now, just what emphasis have they placed on Iraq in the 100-hour plan, hmmmm?

Oh yes, Speaker Pelosi and Sen Reid sent Pres Bush a letter. A stern talking to. That should do it. Thank you, Democrats.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

PPL,

That’s it? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Hogzilla,

You cannot change the definition of surrender and defeat because you feel like it. Give Webster a ring before you try that.

By w00t

January 10, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

looky here!

“Last year was the warmest on record for the United States, with temperatures pushing higher than normal during the last half of December. Preliminary data from the National Climatic Data Center listed the average temperature for the 48 contiguous states in 2006 as 55 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s 2.2 degrees warmer than average.”

Nope, no global warming here. Even though people have been warning about this for YEARS!. WAKE UP!

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 10, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

BD - I’m sorry to see that Andy’s narcolepsy has stricken you as well. It must be horrible to fall asleep while typing.

Yes that was it. Quite funny wasn’t it?

By N-GA

January 10, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Paul,

The last time I checked the conduct of a war is the responsibility of the President. The fact that he has made such a mess of it demands that he be called to task for his failure. The Democrats (and many Republicans) have criticized this never-ending conflict. But it is not their job to tell the military what to do or how to do it. What they could do is withhold funding of the war if that is what they want to do. It is already funded for the time being.

People may have opinions about how they believe the war should be handled, even Congresspersons. Most of those who opposed it in the first place think the best way forward is to withdraw.

So they spend their first 100 hours on things that can be accomplished. They want to focus on legislation that can affect the American people. What kind of legislation do you think they should consider (within their legislative powers) that will help to rein in a war run amok?

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Paul,

You think Democrats want to recall their past on the Iraq War?

Democrats want to forget they VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ by approving President Bush’s intentions.

Democrats now want to undermine the war they voted for by UNDERMINING THE TROOPS BY UNDERFUNDING THEM.

Democrats are now declaring OUR TROOPS CANNOT WIN THIS WAR while saying they support the troops but keep our money at home.

So, Paul, a nice little letter to the president is their way of saying “I support the polls, not the troops.” Did you expect more?

By RFV

January 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Paul @10:46

Indeed, much of the Democratic landslide was over the Iraq debacle but Republicans have had 5 years to screw it up and everyone knows that it ain’t gonna get fixed in 100 hours. That was never a 100 hour promise and you know it but nice try at obfistucation.

Here is the 100hr plan.

Notice that the first two promises have already been passed and checked off-

We will start by cleaning up Congress, ending the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

H.Res. 6, “Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.” passed 430-1, Jan. 1st, 2007

We will make our nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

H.R. 1, “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.” passed 299-128, Jan. 9th, 2007

See what I mean? All Republicans ever do is LIE, LIE, LIE, then LIE some more! Is THAT the sort of values that you want your children to learn?

By w00t

January 10, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Dusty you can get people to do alot when you lie to them and present them with false information.

Get a clue…

By Proud Pinko Liberal

January 10, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

“Democrats are now declaring OUR TROOPS CANNOT WIN THIS WAR while saying they support the troops but keep our money at home.” - Dusty

That’s a funny statement considering that nearly half of the current Republicans in Congress feel the same way. With Bush’s Iraq approval ratings at around 26% you are clearly in the minority nationwide.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

RFV N-GA Dusty

RFV - the “100 Hours” is not a timetable to “fix” anything - it’s a legislative agenda. So much of “obfuscation.” Point was-after getting elected - Democrats are showing they will/can take no effective action to alter the course of the war. So I take their preelection comments/promises/campaigning as so much blather to get elected. And I find it tremendously amazing that even the hardcore ublerlibs are silent.

N-GA - yes, the executive is the Commander in Chief. The military answers to him in the chain of command and to Congress regarding issues of law and policy. Re: funding: that can be terminated at any time. What kind of legislation would I propose? Let me defer that for the time being - the ball’s in Dems/Congressional court - and so far they’re just looking at it. I agree, the legislative items are by and large long overdue and easily passed - but I trusted Pelosi could walk and chew gum at the same time (not exclude Iraq legislation while working on domestic - strikes me too much as a rework of the Republican “we’re not going to discuss a guest worker/immigration reform proposal until we get this fence thing finished.”

Dusty - no, I really didn’t expect more. But many on this forum did. And when they’re not silent, they make excuses.

By Andy

January 10, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Dusty’s tirades are very informative. That’s right, I said informative. We have to know what the lunatic fringe is thinking, and Dusty gives it all away right here, saving us the time to check out other right wing fringe blogs.

Thank you, Dusty, for being an easily read digital/rectal thermometer, thus sharing sentiment gleaned from the crack-silt that encompasses your mind……..ew.

Once again, you help without helping, you inform without informing, and you lanquish in language of langurs.

In short, you are illiteracy illuminated!!! (and a retard).

bwa

By LuckoDull

January 10, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Yeah, the democrats getting something “done:”

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan

Absolutely nothing except this excites all of the their Dullards, which seems to be the new democrat party policy.

You can call this plan the “we know we are spineless surrender monkeys and would love to abandon Iraq to a measley, wormy little band of terrorists but the Evil Cons will pin this on our A-S-S and we won’t have any hope of winning in 08. Plus there is no freaking way that we can get caught on the Pro American side. So let’s throw a meaningless bone to the morons, they’ll strut around and preen for us.”

Boy, you liberals sure are awesome.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Good toon, Mike.

McGwire was a one dimensional ball player, who, apparently, doesn’t have the nads to admit that he royally screwed up and used steroids. He will never join the boys in Cooperstown.

The guys being inducted, Ripken and Gwynn are true Hall of Famers, in every sense of the word. Classy guys who put up stellar numbers in numerous categories.

The analogies to our current political leaders are obvious and endless…

By RFV

January 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Paul @ 11:29

Nobody ever said that the 100hr plan was a timetable to fix anything. It is definitely a legislative agenda that was a cornerstone of why the Democrats won the midterms. The point is that THEY are keeping the promises that they made to get elected. The Republican Contract with America did not have ONE SINGLE SOLITARY item that was ever fullfilled.

Don’t hold your breathe, though. You can bet your trust fund that the Democrats are gonna get on Bush like ugly gets on an ape in regards to Iraq. As you said, it was not a promise made by Democrats but a mandate by the voters.

Democrats are gonna try to clean up your mess as fast as they can. I assume that you would be willing to give the Democrats equivalent time to take out your garbage as you allowed for the Republicans to make it.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

RFV 11:43

‘Tisn’t my mess - unless you’re on the outside looking in and lumping Americans into one pot.

Interesting view that the 100-hr agenda was a “cornerstone” - I heard much in the campaing about corruption and Iraq - some mention of the agenda items but certainly not as a centerpiece of campaign issues.

Your trust fund comment - was that in response to my question yesterday as to whether or not Speaker Pelosi will dissolve her trust funds and have the assets treated as ordinary income when she passes tax hikes for the “rich’?

I sure hope it doesn’t take the Dems as much time to “clean up the mess” as it took “the executive to create it.” Then again, given their lack of substance so far, it just might.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t you know?

Soon as we mention that DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR, woot starts talking about the weather.

Proud Pink Liberal has already counted the votes in Congress when they haven’t even voted. But that’s the Pinko way..the POLLS…the POLLS..my kingdom for a POLL so I will know how to vote.

Even Luckovich stars sports figures as his subject when he sees that DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS IN IRAQ WITH FUNDS.

I would change the subject too. Few DEMOCRATS here want to mention their LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE TROOPS by cutting off funds. But that is the liberal idea of victory, i. e. cut’n’run as hard as you can.

By N-GA

January 10, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Like I asked once already: What would you suggest that Congress (within its Constitutionally-defined powers) do about the Iraq fiasco? Pelosi, the Democrats (and Republicans who oppose the current state of the war) have very limited options. Please enlighten us as to what serious legislative options exist other than imposing fiscal constraints and/or impeachment of the warmonger.

By N-GA

January 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

It would be dangerous to cut off funds for the Iraq War because Bush would leave our troops over their anyway, without ammo, fuel, food, etc. He want to stay the course.

By Lord Help Us

January 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Andrew, other than passing tax cuts that have added $2 trillion to our National Debt over the last 6 years, can you please fill us in on the successes of your Republican Congress over the last 12 years?

This little exercise may help you figure out why so many Republicans are looking for new jobs…

By Paul

January 10, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Not to duck the question - but it seems that a common occurence on this forum is when the topic is on one party or the other’s policies, the question will be put to a poster, rather than examining what the party has said or done. This Congress campaigned on the Iraq war - in strident opposition to the Republican Congress and President. I heard many “we really, really have a plan. You just wait until we win in November.” And now?

But on to the comments posted here over the months that continued funding for the war supports the troops and cutting off funding would harm the troops. Actually, that’s incorrect. Congress passes appropriations in various areas - operations, maintenance, pay, construction, for the Defense Department. Operational funds are generally not targeted for specific items - but they can be. So far, funds haven’t been passed with the restriction “to be used only for Iraq operations” - it’s all in the same pot. So procurement of ammunition (generally a specific legislative item), fuel, food, etc. is part of the annual appropriation. Passing legislation (which would get vetoed, anyhow) stating “no funds will be used for Iraq operations” would of necessity lead to an expeditious withdrawal. The troops would not be in danger - they’d still have food, fuel and ammo during the withdrawal.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 10, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Dusty. Neither can you.

By @@

January 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Man, somebody at Wooten’s got all upset and told me to “Shut-up, just shut-up.”

Yes, it was a leftist who claimed not to give a dodgam about Democrat politicians or Republican politicians.

So now. Onto the proposed surge in Iraq…

Link to follow, which, for some reason, turned all red inside the comment box; but I’m sending it anyway.

It’ll probably turn a lot of leftists here red like my comment at Wooten’s…

By @@

January 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

(Link mentioned above)

“I know my Marines over there — and I still refer to them as my Marines — felt they were shorthanded,” Linn said yesterday.

One of those Marines was Linn’s son, Lance Cpl. Karl Linn. He was killed in an ambush on Jan. 26, 2005, in Iraq’s western Anbar Province.

Linn, whose son wrote in his letters home of long days and limited resources, said Bush’s plan could succeed if the manpower is strategically allocated.

Linn knows his opinion is not a popular one. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that six in 10 respondents say the 3½-year-old war is not worth fighting.

“To me, that’s a very simplistic view,” Linn said. “Sure, we made mistakes. Let history judge. But I don’t think just turning tails and running is going to accomplish anything.”

Offering similar sentiments, but in stronger tones, was Michael Miles of Chesterfield County. His son, Marine Sgt. Sean H. Miles, was killed Jan. 24, 2006, in Karmah, about 50 miles west of Baghdad, and his son-in-law, Marine Sgt. Nicholas Wennberg, is serving in the same region now.

By Ol' Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

The U.S. had nearly 300,000 killed or missing in World War II to get three men. Oh - and let’s not forget the 580K British, 8.6M Soviet and countless others soliders, sailors and airmen that gave their lives for the “Greater Good”. Some of you people lack historical perspective. If it weren’t for those brave souls, we would all be goose-stepping our way to the hate rally.

You wimpy libs need to do a gut check. Try cracking open a book once in a while and learn about history or you’ll be doomed to repeat it.

By w00t

January 10, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

Hey, Dusty… I hate to tell you, but the PEOPLE voted for Bush. This means we, the PEOPLE, are his EMPLOYER. It’s not the other way around. He doesn’t tell us what to do, WE do. Therefore, he should listen to the POLLS, and the PEOPLE. If not, then he is no better than the people who he claims to fight.

So, stop playing the game of, if you don’t support Bush, then you don’t support the troops. The way I see it, I am supporting the troops. I hope for their safety and quick return home. It is completely unacceptable that this train wreck has dragged on for so long.

It didn’t work for you in the elections, and it’s not working now. Get with the wining team, which seems to be almost 70% of the country.

By w00t

January 10, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

Hey, Ol guts and glory, why don’t you catch up on 50 years of failed Middle East foreign policy?

By @@

January 10, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Oops! I’m sorry Mr. Miles, word limit at ml’s and all. You’re opinion is important to me. Continue please…

“When did America become, ‘Well, we got our nose bloodied, so we should just leave’?” he asked. “I don’t understand that. We can’t just say we should pack up and leave because it’s not working. Well, guess what? We are there. You can’t just pack up and walk out. We did that in Vietnam. It doesn’t work.”

By Mike

January 10, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Hey Ol’ Buts and Glory, WWII was a justified war and the men and women of America lined up to join the military. If Iraq is such a good cause, how come I don’t see the recuiters office’s full instead of empty? Is it a liberal conspiracy? Afghanistan was a justified war, Iraq is not. It was an “easy” opportunity for a bunch of neo-cons to knock off a secular state. Now don’t get me wrong, Sadam was an evil, evil man, but what about Kim-Jong Il? He supposedly has nukes pointed at us. We haven’t done anything with the PRK except give him more reasons to expand his nuclear capability. Same with Iran.You can stand with this president, it’s your right, but it’s also my right to disagree and protest. That’s what America is all about sir.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

w00t

Interesting view at 1:04. Rather the Pres Clinton approach to governing. Carried to it’s logical extension, though, it’s fraught with difficulties. For instance, the median household income is around $42k. So if a poll asked the question “do you favor redistributing income by taking away all monies from households in excess of $42k a year and spreading it out so all households have the same income” (I know, some here support that, a particular party does to a lesser extent) then by your reasoning the President should support just such an economic policy.

Just remember “public support” for a number of rather progressive social issues - if not for a President who set out a bold agenda against public opinion much of what we have today - would not exist.

Many view the Pres as an office that sets a course the occupant feels is in the best interest of the country. It’s called leadership, not reactive polling. If the people don’t like it, they vote him out after a term or bring the opposing party to power in the midterm Congressional elections.

By Local Recruiter

January 10, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

After our beloved leaders speech tonight, I expect to see all you escalation fans at:

Air Force 3500 Gwinnett Place Drive 770 813 1077

Marine Corp 6855 Jimmy Carter 770 246 0001

Army 455 Grayson Highway 770 446 2220

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

WooT,

In this Representative Republic, we elect REPRESENTATIVES to lead us. There are times when they have to do the unpopular thing.

If we are to follow your theory to its logical conclusion, since all we need are polls we can do away with all advisors, the Cabinet, Generals, and everything else and just listen to what idiot wOOt has to say.

Maybe you should stick to your “look how hot is is. We’re doomed!!!” commentary.

By Jolly Green Whupazz

January 10, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - The young adults of Generation Next are more optimistic, more tolerant and more likely Democratic voters than their predecessors, according to a new study.

The group’s tilt toward the Democratic Party is far different from the previous younger generation, known as Generation X, who grew up during the Reagan administration of the 1980s and was more inclined to support Republicans.

“This portends a significant political impact as they get more engaged,” said Scott Keeter, a researcher from the Pew Research Center. “If they carry their party leanings with them, that will make a big difference.”

Forty-eight percent of young adults age 18 to 25 said they were Democrats or leaned that direction while 35 percent said they were Republican or leaned that way in 2006, according to Pew polling.

The study also found a great acceptance for same-sex marriage. Forty-seven percent of those age 18 to 25 favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry while 30 percent of those 26 and older favor gay marriage.

Looks like the uber-right is in for many, many, many more years of pinko liberal control. They have now wakened the sleeping GIANT! Who can blame the ‘Next’ generation for being disillusioned with the Republican party. With a poster boy like King George the magnificent, what would you expect?

By Huge

January 10, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

Hey @@,

I’ve had that same problem that you mentioned, comments, links, etc., turning all red inside the comment box.

Beats the heck out of me as to what causes it, but posts appear to go through normally in spite of it.

WTF?

My two cents worth.

Is 20,000 more troops going to make the difference that four years of fighting already hasn’t?

I hope so, but like I’ve noted here numerous times before, I don’t have a good feeling about this…

By @@

January 10, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

Ya know Paul. I can’t apply the “two ears and one mouth” adage to you in this type of forum. You’re operating with two eyes and ten fingers. That doesn’t apply either.

So I’ll alter it to “two eyes and one brain”.

Read, recall, and mull it over before putting forth thoughts.

Refreshing and informative.

The problem is you’re up against people with “ten itchy fingers” that go from “head scratching” to keyboard in an emotional flash.

I’m out for awhile.

By RE

January 10, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

@@

There are strong similarities between Iraq, Vietnam, and in some respects North Korea. The defeat in Vietnam and the lesson from that is not “we cannot quit”, the lesson is that a military invasion is not a good way to bring about a new government. Military action can destroy opposing armies, take out infrastructure, and kill a portion of the populace. What it cannot do is change a government, he can destroy the infrastructure of one, but not create one.

There is no american action that can bring about a stable iraqi government. Only the Iraqis can choose to do that. We won the war when Hussein was captured. We are losing the occupation because of mission creep. The insurgency does not have to defeat the US forces, only survive. Through poor planning and optomism, we have allowed out forces to become enmeshed in a situation where no action on thier part can bring about victory.

By N-GA

January 10, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Paul, You seem to agree that Congress only has the power to legislate the restriction of funds for use in the Iraq debacle, yet you point out that any such legislation would most certainly be vetoed. Anthing else they can do?

In the meantime, let Congress do what it can to Govern! The Democrats ran on many issues including Iraq, corruption, energy, healthcare, social security, etc. Polls say that Americans were most influenced by the Iraq debacle. But it is incorrect to say: “This Congress campaigned on the Iraq war - in strident opposition to the Republican Congress and President. I heard many “we really, really have a plan. You just wait until we win in November.”

To do so ignores all the GOP candidates who campaigned by distancing themselves from Bush and the war. That point of view is disingenuous, at best.

So once again, what is Congress to do to really affect the Iraq War?

By Paul

January 10, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

@@

Thanks… I think…

By @@

January 10, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

RE:

Vietnam was an entire country in turmoil. The majority of Iraq’s provinces are doing fine.

There is supposed to be more to this surge than just military support. It is intended to promote diplomacy and economic support as well.

In the areas of Iraq, outside Baghdad, diplomatic and economic support has done wonders.

We’ll give it a go and see.

Has your baby been born yet?

Huge:

I’m not one who allows negativity to govern my thoughts. They’re not constructive, but rather, destructive to those I encounter.

I’m all about “good vibes”. It’s kharma.

Paul:

Did I leave you “scratching your head?” My apologies. You’re brain is working correctly. It was a compliment.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

RFV,

Your last question, “Which set of VALUES do you want your children to learn?” in that 10:29 really cuts to the heart of the matter!

In light of their ambitious 100 hour agenda, the 110th Congress has a new-found sense of urgency, and in some ways, although not many, I almost feel sorry for the Republican party of today.

It’s rather interesting that the people who brought us the Contract With (On?) America have thrown away virtually all of their credibility and crashed and burned in 12 short years. Over the past few years, it has been patently obvious that most of the GOP has pretty much lost its already tenuous connection with mainstream America.

And it has been primarily due to a deadly combination; picking the wrong people to lead (there are many examples, but Delay, Frist, Rumsfeld and of course, Bush readily come to mind), and most importantly, having the wrong “message”.

Combine those with a large number of right-wingers with an apparent disdain for ethics, along with a sense of entitlement to dirty money and an over-riding desire for revenge, and it was a certain recipe for the disaster they suffered in November’s mid-term elections.

Most Americans now agree that many, if not most, of the neo-con policies, both socially and fiscally have been utterly misguided. So this version of the once-proud party of Lincoln has made a seemingly endless series of terrible decisions. The problematic invasion of Iraq, of course, leads the list, but there are way, way too many others.

But rather than adapt to changing realities and moderate, or even fundamentally change, failed reactionary ideas, the most extreme continue to rely on intransigence and hubris. They merely try to cloak it all in catch-phrases, as you alluded to, like “moral clarity” and “family values”.

To them, compromise is equal to acquiesence, or worse yet, failure, and statesmanship is for the weak. And the entire nation, even the entire world, has paid and continues to pay an almost unbearable price.

And in spite of the shrill lunatic fringe that remains here, there are indications and I am hopeful that a reasonable center will re-appear within the GOP. There is at least a decent chance that some in the party will learn from their past mistakes and they will be the ones who redefine their “base” as something much more than demagogues and theocrats.

By Ol' Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

Gee Mike - Buts and Glory? Obviously more of my tax dollars wasted on your education (or lack there of). “But” is a conjunction, whereas “Butt” is a noun. Back to the drawing board for more stick figures.

But how does this sound for a justification?

Over 270 mass graves have been discovered in Iraq containing the remains of 400,000 people. The invasion of Kuwait. Scuds bombing Israel. Eco-vandalism: releasing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf and polluting the air by torching oil rigs, or Saddam Hussein’s government supporting terrorism by paying “bonuses” of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

Not enough justification yet?

Stick your head back in the sand my liberal friend and sleep well tonight. The U.S. military is there to protect you.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

N-GA

I’m just looking for some follow-through on Iraq. Not saying I necessarily agree, just looking for follow-through. I never thought Congress should pass only legislation that would not face a veto. In this case, I’m rather suspicious it’s as an ealier poster wrote - following through would jeopardize Presidential chances in ‘08.

Yes, a number of Republicans distanced themselves from the administration. Which leads to the topic that Congress can strongly influence the debate, and the action - but only if they come strongly on record. A letter to the Pres just doesn’t cut it.

And I’d still like to hear some original proposals from our new Congress regarding foreign policy - Iraq included. It’ll give me a pretty good idea of where a Democratic Pres and Congress will take us. Then again, the cynic in me says possibly that’s why we won’t hear much in that regard. As Sen Clinton shows, you gotta tack to the center to win the election.

By RE

January 10, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

@@

We are expecting in June.

I am not sure what areas outside of baghdad you are thinking about. The kurdish north is peaceful, primarialy because it is well on it’s way to becoming an indepedant state seperate from the rest of Iraq.

But I have to concede, the places in Iraq that are all desert and no people are peaceful.

By Lord Help Us

January 10, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

All Butt and No Glory,

Do all of your ‘justifications’ for the invasion JUSTIFY the absolute incompetence demonstrated by this administration SINCE the invasion??

Please explain…

By Huge

January 10, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

I’m not one who allows negativity to govern my thoughts. They’re not constructive, but rather, destructive to those I encounter.

I’m all about “good vibes”. It’s kharma.

Most people understand that there is a big difference between negativity and naivity.

And in general, I agree with your statements. Nor am I saying you’re naive for disagreeing with my concerns about more troops turning the tide in Iraq.

But trite expressions about good vibes and karma don’t have much value in terms of complex geopolitical problems and solutions.

And if you misconstrue thoughtful concerns as negativity, then that’s just plain silly.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, Guts/Glory. But our invasion has made it all much much better.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

RE

Congratulations!

By Goldie

January 10, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

{Stick your head back in the sand my liberal friend and sleep well tonight. The U.S. military is there to protect you.}

Ol Guts— the US military is busy protecting us from those Shiites and Sunnis fighting each other for dominance in Iraq? Wow— you must really be the one who doesn’t get any sleep at night. Any solution to the Iraq problem at this point will only be achieved by the Iraqis themselves and it will only occur after America has ended its occupation of that foreign land!

And anyone with real “guts” would understand that…

By Mike

January 10, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

No Guts, But we were friends with Sadam in the 80’s weren’t we? Have you seen the photo of Rumsfeld shanking Sadam’s hand? Why didn’t Reagan do anything then? Also, why didn’t Bush say we were going to war to oust Sadam? Because no one would have supported it. So they made up the WMD (and don’t say everyone thought he had them because they didn’t). They very cleverly made it seem Sadam was responsible for 9/11. Check the polls, why do a good many Americans still believe that? They scared the most gullible and naive in America, most are only now waking up to see the truth. Remember Nov 7th?

By Ol' Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

Incompetence by politicians is what caused failure in Vietnam and it will cause failure in the future. When our troops can go in and do their job without politicians (from any side) tying their hands behind their backs, they will give you results. Just tell them what the goal is and get the hell out of the way. Unfortunately for us, terrorist organizations know that many politicians don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary, because they want to get re-elected.

Career politicians forget who they are supposed to be serving…the people of the United States and not their own power-hungry ambitions. This holds true for ALL parties.

That being said – this administration has made mistakes. MANY in fact. I challenge you to name an administration that hasn’t.

By The Peoples of a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 10, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

My Fellow Amerikan’s The time has come to plan for future wars and corporate profits

This (Old) news (pre Iraq invasion) is almost a crystal ball into the future (that would be now!)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=19

Or how about this article for really being predictive of the Iraq folly! Scarey Huh?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1125-01.htm

Then came the vote for Bush to have the ability to wage war on Iraq (based on a false accusation by the Bush Administration of WMD’s). Please note people that many “Democrats” were against this option, and even said that the terms were way too broad.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021012/world.htm

There were many reasons why not to go into war. And very few proven ones to go.

http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/cgaa/talkingpoints/0210iraq_body.html

And there were serious questions whether it was even legal for the President to be able to “go to war” or “take military action”.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-26-02.html

But we went anyway. It should be interesting to see what lies for us in the future. There may even be some surprises.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

But now the Democrats are back in charge of congress (which actually has the power to declare war). Of course they plan to curtail “Dubya’s” private little war a bit.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/01/07/national/w073819S83.DTL

But Bush Calls for more troops in defiance!

I’d say the home war has just begun!

Should be very interesting to see how many times the good ol’ veto pen gets used now! I think we will call 2007 “The Year of the Veto!”

PNAC (Never forget that it takes

By @@

January 10, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

(((By Huge)))

(((And if you misconstrue thoughtful concerns as negativity, then that’s just plain silly.)))

I didn’t say anything about “your” thoughts. Didn’t misconstrue anything. Your modus operandi has become all too familiar to me though.

My first paragraph clearly stated “I” and “my”. Why the defensive strategy?

Sorry my words can’t be changed to suit fit your Huge MO.

Now I really am gone. Care to try again in my absence?

By Lord Help Us

January 10, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Everyone relax…Ol’ butt and glory hole says ALL administrations make mistakes…

So chill…it’s just a never-ending war, incompetently run and will cost us about $2 trillion…No big deal…

Yup, I’m sure all the parents who have lost children, all children who have lost parents, and, heck, everyone that has lost loved ones because of this ‘mistake’ are comforted by your moral relativism…

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

G+G: “this administration has made mistakes. MANY in fact. I challenge you to name an administration that hasn’t.”

True… but I can count on one hand the number of administrations whose mistakes have cost over 3000 American lives.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Sorry Guts/Glory, there are mistakes, and then there are mistakes. There is a slight difference between mistakes that, for instance, Clinton made (had an affair in the White House) and mistakes that Bush made (3,000+ American dead and counting and counting and counting…). There is also a difference between mistakes made in a tough, unavoidable situation (Wako), and willingly marching head-first into hopeless, useless disasters, completely unprepared for them (Iraq). So no, just because every administration makes “mistakes” we should not be forced to swallow anabashed arrogance and utter failure for 8 years.

By The Peoples of a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 10, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

;-)

Guts & Glory January 10, 2007 02:02 PM

Please be sure to add a comparison of Iraqi Civilians we have killed during the invasion in your statistics too. I mean just so we can get a good comparison of what a great job we are doing in Iraq in protecting them.

After all, in the daily “White House” changing reasons for the Iraqi Invasion, we have to justify the collatteral damage and what-not just so we can say it was all legal by international law.

And your right that incompetent Politicians got us into this mess without any strategy, listening to the troops, or full military support too just like ol’ Nam’.

Maybe some competent ones can get us out!

And your comparison of WW2 at [January 10, 2007 12:58 PM] is insane. How can you begin to compare the loss of lives in Iraq where we had far superior firepower and weapons as compared to our enemy as to the near equal weaponry of that era? Nutz I say!

So tell me Guts & Glory where were you stationed at again?

PNAC (Amerika’ The Beautiful, Bechtel shed it’s grace on you! With Haliburton at it’s side from oil fields to the Sea!)

By Ol' Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

Yes, there are pictures of Rumy with Saddam. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend! Again, check you history books - Saddam was not as big of a threat to us at the time as IRAN. Wasn’t Carter the one who started many of our woes in the Middle East? Clinton gave nuclear technology to North Korea – tell me THAT’S not coming back to haunt us. I’m sorry if the subtle nuance of global politics escapes you – that’s not your fault. Many people only see what is put in front of them and they only remember it for a moment. Fear not my liberal friends, the ALCU will give everyone protection, including all terrorists entering, or already in this great land of ours. Exploding busses are just around the corner and coming to a town near you. Enjoy!

By Neo-Con Artist

January 10, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

I suppose Ol Guts still gets nostalgic for those good ole days in Viet Nam, too. If the Republican Party had its way in the 70’s, we’d still be over there today fighting in their civil war that would never end… and it only ended after America no longer occupied their land!

By Huge

January 10, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

Speaking of neo-con intolerance and bigotry, this Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) is a class act, no? He must have gone to the George Allen school of lack of respect for those who don’t share his “christian” beliefs.

“if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office.” He added that we need to “end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country” so as to “preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.”

Too bad this POS doesn’t move to Georgia, so some of the usual haters here, and everybody knows who they are, could vote for him and tell us what a swell human being he really is…

By O'l Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

War is Hell.

It’s never pretty. It’s never right.

No matter how “careful” you are, an innocent will get hurt. That’s just the ugly truth of war.

And why not use WWII as a reference point? Libs have been comparing Bush to Hitler.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

What does this “listesn to the troops” mean, anyways? It’s another nice, meaningless phrase like “win in Iraq”. It sounds good, but the only meaning it seems to have is linguistic. OK, let’s listen to the troops. What do they say? The major problem is not that we didn’t “listen to the troops” (although more armor and more ground forces early on might have saved some American lives), the major problem is that the neocon cabal lives on the crossroads of complete idiocy and full-blown romantic idealism. The whole invasion, from start to finish, was a thoroughly ridiculous, idiotic idea. It’s failure isn’t the myriad of details after the invasion. Those are not causes of our failure. They are symptoms of a failure to understand human nature and different cultures on their most fundamental level. And it’s a colossal one. And any administration that knows this little about people should not have any power over a group larger than 10 to begin with.

By Local Recruiter

January 10, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

If y’all neo-con leftovers show up tomorrow, or send your sons and daughters, nieces, nephews, whatever, you can support our troops by preventing some poor GI from doing a 3rd tour.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Coming to a Congress near you tomorrow:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/39808/

U.S. lawmakers plan to use the first hours of the new 110th Congress, to assemble legislation to extend Federal research funding to newly derived stem cell lines. President George Bush vetoed the measure in July 2006 after it had passed the Senate and House with wide bipartisan support. The House failed to muster the necessary two-thirds votes to override the veto, a hurdle supporters hope to surmount this year.

While details were still being worked out last night, the plan as of press time is for bill sponsors Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.) to reintroduce an identical version of their “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005” in the House tomorrow (Jan. 5), and for Senators Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) to submit the identical measure as early as today. The bills will be numbered HR 3 and S 5, respectively.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

First of all, G&G, no, Clinton did not give nukes to North Korea. You’re living in your little neocon alternate reality where everything is Clinton’s fault, including babies crying. Second of all, no, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. My friend is my friend. The enemy of my enemy could well be my enemy as well. Christopher Scarver killed Jeffrey Dahmer in jail. Is this “schizophrenic psychopath with messianic delusions” your good buddy? Soviets and the Taliban + Al Quaeda spent nearly a decade fighting in Afghanistan. Which ones are your good friend, G&G?

By Thomas

January 10, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

-=-

Well Ol’ Guts and Glory just proved himself to be ignorant by saying Clinton gave the North Koreans Nuclear technology (lol). What a un-edukated-in-Gawja’ Looony!

Thomas

-=-

By bon scott

January 10, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

I’ll be waiting on pins and needles for the “Deciderer in Chief’s” speech tonight. Mostly hoping he’ll surprise me and announce something bold and daring.

Fat chance.

Bush’s overall strategy seems likely to remain wholly unchanged: To keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes for the Iraqi government to start functioning effectively. That means using American bodies and firepower, pretty much indefinitely, to prop up a country racked by civil war and chafing under occupation. That means the American death count ticks on, with no end in sight.

To say nothing of the expense, $2 billion a week. That’s more than enough to build an Alaska style Ted Stevens bridge to nowhere every DAY.

BushCo still hasn’t gotten though its skull and bones that we’ll all be able to tell that the Emperor, once again, is wearing the same old clothes.

What the public, the Democrats running Congress, some Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have been calling for is an actual change in strategy.

That’s right! A change in STRATEGY!! Maybe Bush can call up his genius friends like Rummy and Dart Cheney to explain what that involves. Among other things, it involves listening to what both the people and all those Pentagon veterans he put to pasture who KNOW that the a new name on an old failed policy doesn’t make it successful. What do we (they) want?

They don’t want American soldiers held hostage to sectarian violence and the Iraqis’ inability to form themselves into a peaceful, Western-style democracy. They want the troops to start coming home. Their preferred strategy is to make it clear to the Iraqis that they’ll soon be on their own — and that they have to solve their problems themselves.

I know the Bush would love to drag this on until 2009, when his successor steps in. Doesn’t matter about more lives (Iraqi and American) lost. Nope, it’s all about staying the couse. The Deciderer knows!!

By Raymond

January 10, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

With that goofy little tough guy grin, The Alcoholic Imbecile will soon speak words that others have written for him. Worst of all, there are freaks here and elsewhere who will believe. Pitiful.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

“Fear not my liberal friends, the ALCU will give everyone protection, including all terrorists entering, or already in this great land of ours. Exploding busses are just around the corner and coming to a town near you.”

Wow! That choice for those first two words, “Fear not”, is stunningly ironic!

If this was a neo-con play on words of FDR’s “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”, it would be “We have much to fear and we’ll keep telling you how fearful you should be.”

I thought that most of that inane fear-mingering was gone, but I guess there are some who are still into using it. And maybe even living it. If we all join OG&G, then the homicide bombers have won.

By Bass-Ackwards

January 10, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. home prices may have dipped over the past year, but many American workers would still struggle to afford a median-priced home in major cities, a new study said on Wednesday.

This should be called ‘trickle-UP’ economics. Remember the housing boom and the massive influx of new first time home ownership under the Clinton administration?

When the middle class is protected from ‘trickle-down’ Republican economics, they have money to buy houses, then the home builders can buy new equipment, the equipment manufacturers can improve their communications equipment, the communications equipment dealers can buy industry stocks for their retirement savings, those industries can build new plants and hire new workers, the new workers can buy new houses……

And it all starts at the foundation of American society, the middle class. Republicans sold us a bill of goods with ‘trickle down’ economics. Hopefully the American public has learned its’ lesson and America can, once again, become the prosperous society for all that it was under Democratic ‘trickle-UP’ leadership.

As usual the Republicans got it bass-ackwards. If your child turns out to be middle-class, wouldn’t it be nice if they could afford to buy a decent home to raise your grandchildren in?

By RE

January 10, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

Love that line rushncap:

the major problem is that the neocon cabal lives on the crossroads of complete idiocy and full-blown romantic idealism

By bon scott

January 10, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

Very good point, rushncap! The neocons, insisting that Clinton gave nukes to N. Korea, still think that if you repeat a lie often enough…..

Clinton’s work DELAYED N. Korea’s nukes. I think we were sorta hoping for a plague.. or a coup… sometime.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

BAGHDAD • Iraqi authorities admitted yesterday to divided loyalties within their security forces, which are widely believed to be infiltrated by Shi’ite militias embroiled in the country’s sectarian killings.

And Bush thinks a “surge” will make everybody with a gun in Iraq kiss and make up???

Delusional. Pathetic. Just what you’d expect from a guy who promises to go down in history as the US’s worst President in at least a century.

By bon scott

January 10, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

nice post bass! The GOP “trickle down” economy blueprint is a myth. AT least they way they’re doing it.

Rising foreclosers and skyrocketting home equity debt make that abundantly clear.

‘Course, they’re just doing what the GOP bean-counters do. Borrow and spend! “Tomorrow is another day..”

By RFV

January 10, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

Hey, hey, hey. Those Democrats are livin up to their word. Unlike the Republican Contract with America the Democrats are actually DOING what they promised to do. Check-off #3 on the first 100hr list…….

#1 We will start by cleaning up Congress, ending the link between lobbyists and legislation.

H.Res. 6, Title II, “Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.” passed 430-1, Jan. 4th, 2007

#2 We will commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

H.Res. 6, Title V, “Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.” passed 280-152, Jan. 5th, 2007

#3 We will make our nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

H.R. 1, “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.” passed 299-128, Jan. 9th, 2007

Next on the list- raising the minimum wage so that trickle-UP economics can make the American economy bloom once again.

Isn’t it fantastic having politicians who actually DO what they said they would do instead of the same tired old Republican gaggle of LIARS?

By Local Recruiter

January 10, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Oh, boy the lame duck is sending Iraq 20,000 sitting ducks!

Gung Ho!

By Bass-Ackwards

January 10, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

Hey bon- Yeh, I just dropped it off at Wooten’s. Should be fun watching the wingnuts implode.

By Ol' Guts and Glory

January 10, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

Thomas, your ingnorance saddens me. Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea” (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. (a.k.a) Nuclear Technology) Not NUKES! Google THAT my lefty little loon.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

Bass-Ackwards,

Um, it’s you moonbats who are “imploding”. Bush is giving the speech, not Ted Kennedy.

By Goldie

January 10, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Look at the photo on the AJC home page right now — how many of you war-mongering fanatics here on the blog are happy about sending the same troops back to Iraq over and over again?

Army Sgt. Thomas Ketchum, 23, says goodbye to fiancee Nikki Desarro, 22, Wednesday at Fort Stewart as he prepares for his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq.

By LuckoDull

January 10, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

The 300 Guard forces and 60 troopers were supposed to be pulled out of the city by the end of 2006, but city officials asked that they remain and the state extended the tour of duty through June.

City of Baghdad officials you ask? Nope, New Orleans:

Blanco told reporters at an informal news conference after addressing the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, the state’s largest business lobbying organization, that despite a rash of killings in the city in recent weeks, she will not order a long-term increase in the 60 troopers and 300 Guard troops assigned to New Orleans.

Call it a lie followed by a surge if you will.

Maybe Bush can safe up N.O, an American city with no Al Qaeda terrorists in it, after he secures Iraq.

Since you democrats can’t.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RE

January 10, 2007 05:08 PM | Link to this

Now, I know many of you will support GWB no matter what he does, but honestly, do any of you think that an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq for 3-6 months have any effect at all?

Is this going to lead to victory, or just more delay. And if this is not a plan for victory, why are you supporting it?

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

So yes, G&G, I took your suggestion. I’m sorry, but I actually did Google the Agreed Framework. You really should not tell people to do something that totally destroys your point. To wit, the first provision is “DPRK’s graphite-moderated nuclear power plants, which could easily produce weapons grade plutonium, would be replaced with light water reactor (LWR) power plants by a target date of 2003.” Meaning that the agreement stipulated that Korea would replace the more dangerous reactors they were building with less dangerous. Horrible idea, huh?

This is not to mention the fact that the agreed-upon supplies for light water reactors never came since the Republican Congress refused funds for it. This lead Korea to pull out of the agreement and build nukes. So thank you Republican Congress!

Do let us know when you tire of being wrong, G&G.

By Peter

January 10, 2007 05:21 PM | Link to this

Right. The Drunk intend to perpetuate his Iraq criminal nightmare so as to leave it for the next president to clean up and be blamed. Recall this is exactly what his Daddy, “Bail-out-and-slaughter-my-crew-Bush” did in Somalia. His reelection bid had failed, he built a fire in Somalia, sent troops to the area, refused to activate them while in office,dropping the mess in Clinton’s lap. Watch Bushie invoke the name of “Somalia” in his War On Terror” regurgitation tonight!

By Thomas

January 10, 2007 05:22 PM | Link to this

To the idiot that goes by the name of:

Ol’ Guts and Glory -

Gee this sounds like another Andy clone and name!

Again I recap the fact that your an un-edukated looney -

Carter went to the DPRK (with Clinton’s Blessings) to halt the DPRK’s Heavy Water reactor from producing Bomb Grade materials. This reactor was considered a “Real Threat” to the USA as the end product was bomb grade plutonium. This was a last ditch attempt before Clinton ordered an attack on the DPRK.

The agreement that came out of it was that the DPRK would shut down it’s Heavy water reactor and the U.N. would monitor the Reactor and Fuel rods, and Plutonium under lock and camera with U.N. inspectors.

The USA would then build two light water reactors to produce power for the DPRK, and supply the DPRK with oil to create electricity until the two LW-Reactors were built. Keep in mind Light Water reactors do not produce bomb grade leftovers.

Then (the love of your life) Dubya’ Bush gets elected and in a fit of insanity, (because he finds that the North Koreans are still researching nuclear weapons) (duh!), he cuts off their oil supply right before winter time. Please note that winters are very harsh in North Korea. Basically this move by Bush, null and voids the Carter/Clinton agreement with North Korea.

The North Koreans try several routes of diplomacy first to get the aggreement back on track, but Bush’ “stays the course”. So since the agreement is null and void due to Bush, the North Koreans break the U.N. Seals and Locks, Shut off the U.N.’s monitoring cameras, restart the reactor, and start researching (successfully) Nuke’s in earnest while citing Bush’s aggressive war like behavior!

Now - as to Clinton giving the North Koreans any nuclear technology! It never happened yah’ idiot. They never even started construction on the buildings for the 2 light water reactors much less the reactors themselves. So no nuclear technology was EVER given to North Korea by Clinton!

So I say once again your an: “UN-Edukated! Right Wing, parroting Looney!”

Thomas

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

RE,

The troop surge of 20,000 or so isn’t scattered all over Iraq, it’s primarily for Baghdad. With our increase along with the Iraqi increase the ratio of civilian to military will be down to about 50 to 1. So yes I think it can make a substantial difference as long as we don’t allow our hands to be tied or any area to be placed off limits.

By Midori

January 10, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

you’re so freaking cool :)

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 05:41 PM | Link to this

OK RW, I’ll bite. We add 20,000 more troops. Then what? There will be a little less violence, perhaps, for the length of their stay. I’m assuming the theory is that the Shia and the Sunni will learn to love each other in that time? Or are we simply putting off a civil war by several months while Bush pretends to be doing something?

By Bob

January 10, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

George, Gearge, George! You naughty boy! Now you’ve gone and upset BD, RW, Dustmite, Luckodumb, @@, others.
Got them all thrashing wildly about in their dumpsters. That’s what truth and reality does to those insects.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

OK RW, I’ll bite. We add 20,000 more troops. Then what? There will be a little less violence, perhaps, for the length of their stay. I’m assuming the theory is that the Shia and the Sunni will learn to love each other in that time? Or are we simply putting off a civil war by several months while Bush pretends to be doing something?

Thanks Midori! :) Right back atcha.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Did you have to repost the whole thing just to wink at Midori? sheesh…get a room you two.

The 50 to 1 ratio is one that is a pretty standard ratio for keeping control of an area whether that be in policing a city or holding a territory. If we just hold control and do nothing to put down the Mahdi Army and do nothing diplomatically while we hold control it will fail in the long run.

That of course also gives us the possibility of weeding out the most militant Shia and Sunni and bringing the others together. I like the chance of succeeding a lot better than just throwing our hands up and quitting just because there is also a chance of failure.

What an awful place this world would be if no man had ever done anything that didn’t have a guarantee of success.

By N-GA

January 10, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this

I think the wingnuts on this blog should be given a “timeout”. The implosion has been impressive. If I didn’t know better, I might conclude that the leftist intelligencia have been posting using wingnut sobriquets in order to make them look utterly stupid.

If that be the case, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

Bob,

George who?

Only 3 more nights until bath time. Hang in there!

By Huge

January 10, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever…” George Bush, June 2005

By RE

January 10, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

OK RW, so in 6 months will we win?

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

Guts & Glory,

Don’t mind the rhetoric here. It is just the usual gang from the alQueda Lucko cell. They always talk big while Democrats in Congress do nothing but complain, write letters, draw up committees to investigate what they voted for with the usual display of white flags. Don’t let it bother you.

If they liked you, they’d send you a picture of Cindy Sheehan, personally autographed for cut’n’runners.

Their memory is short. They forget DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE IRAQI WAR. They also forget about the Constitution and think the country is based on polls. They are also a bit forgetful about 9/11, Afghanistan, and mass graves in Iraq.

So hang in there, Guts and Glory. Don’t mind this wolf pack. They can’t govern so they growl.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:12 PM | Link to this

Goat,

Isnt’ “lefist intelligentsia” an oxymoron?

It’s something you’ve tried to convince us exists over the years, but since this “intellegentsia” supported Stalin and Mao, it’s a bit difficult to be convinced of the “intelligent” part - unless you look at it as their being intelligent subversives whose mission is to undermine our government.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 06:14 PM | Link to this

“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever…” George Bush, June 2005

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:14 PM | Link to this

Just heard the Democratic response to tonight’s speech is still in the works. I wait with baited breath. Odds on criticism vs. ideas? Possibly Speaker Pelosi will follow up with a sterner (is that a word?) letter?

By RE

January 10, 2007 06:15 PM | Link to this

“What an awful place this world would be if no man had ever done anything that didn’t have a guarantee of success.”

We are not talking about the wright brothers here. We are talking about a war, one that no one sees any end to. Does anyone here think that we are 6 months away from victory? A year?

You are commiting to endless war, endless expense, with no chance of success. Make the choice. Either take over and hold Iraq, making into a territory of the US using brutal force to destory any opposition or get out.

This whole idea of an Iraq that is fiendly to US interests anytime in the next 20 years is fantasy

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this

RW, so after roughly 100 straight dramatic failures you’re so chipper about this administration because it keeps trying? You know, if you bang the wall with your head 100 times it would not fall, but maybe on the 101st it will. You should try that.

And how, pray tell, are we going to “bring the Shia and the Sunni together”? There is only 1 past time that they both seem to enjoy doing: shooting American soldiers. I don’t blame them, of course, if Iraq invaded the U.S. both conservatives and liberals would be united by the same desire to destroy the invading force. But this certainly isn’t going to play well back home, now is it?

No one is asking for a guarantee of success. What we’re asking for is some logical reason why this 101st hit of the head against the wall will be the charm. And we’re also asking as to why the hell we should trust Bush ever again.

Face it, RW, Bush has failed. He’s a moron. He really is. Or whoever tugs the strings on him is. It’s time, RW. Well past time, in fact. Face reality for once. Just try it, you never know, maybe you’ll like it.

By RE

January 10, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

Actually Dusty, the democrats in what, 2 days have passed 4 bills already. Increased Minimum wage, instituted a pay as you go rule to stop deficeit spending, instituted all the 9-11 recomendations, and passed ethics reform for lobbists.

I guess they aren’t really doing anything in your mind if there isn’t a law on flag burning or prayer in schools on the table

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:22 PM | Link to this

Huge Wuss,

That strategy didn’t work, partly because Iran has been sending a proxy army to work with Al Sadr. Now we have to change tactics, and the rules of engagement.

I know this is shocking to you never-wavering people who nominated John Flipping Kerry for President, but it happens all the time in war.

Remember all those Democrats who demanded that Clinton take military action against Hussein for WMDS, voted for the war and are now…

Oh nevermind. I don’t want to burst your little virtual reality bubble.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:23 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, our 4th grade-educated Muffin complaining about “intelligentsia”. I’m impressed she can spell the word.

Paul — I’m not sure why you think bad ideas are better than no ideas.

By LuckoDull

January 10, 2007 06:25 PM | Link to this

Gosh, what great strides the democrats are taking with their agenda:

Pelosi Bans Smoking in U.S. Capitol Lobby

12 years you libs sweated over that??

House Passes Minimum Wage Hike- The bill was the second measure passed since Democrats took control of the House, ending more than a decade of Republican rule.

12 years of waiting, 100 hours promised, 2 days and we’ve only gotten two bills passed?

And Bush has steamrolled your a-s-ses over Iraq, a virtual cut and run from Congress?

You liberals really are a joke.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 06:26 PM | Link to this

Rebot,

I have no more way of knowing the answer to that than you do of knowing we won’t.

rushncap,

There’s not a chance in hell that you leftists would be on our side if we were invaded. Anyone that remotely resembles an enemy of the US, you build shrines to.

That was the funniest thing you’ve ever written though. Thanks for the belly laugh!

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:27 PM | Link to this

RW,

Didn’t RE imply that he has been in Iraq and engaged in military service? I recall him saying something about how beautful Iraq.

Do you think he has Alzheimers or something? He seems to have forgotten that we are still in S. Korea, Germany, and Bosnia but insists on a 6 month deadline in Iraq.

I hear that if you drink fruit or vegetable juice daily it prevents the disease, but unfortunately it may be too late for poor RE.

By Bill

January 10, 2007 06:28 PM | Link to this

Yes George. Shame on you. You have switched on the light of truth and caused the neocons here to scatter about and hiss like so many cockroaches. Spoiled their day, just as they had settled down to watch the latest speech from their Beloved Father. Have you no pity? We’ll expect better from you in the future. You’ll feel safer, with more troops being sent into the shredder.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

rushncap

I listened to a journalist/commentator this afternoon - made his sixth trip to Anbar Province. He noted Shia and Sunni forces were working joint police operations quite successfully. Also stated it was true in other areas of the country. Said he saw zero other journalists in those areas. Saw plenty in Baghdad.

He wasn’t rosy - said instead of more “troops” there should be more training personnel. Also related most ground pounders he spoke with weren’t excited about more troops. I’m not saying it’s rosy, either. But his comments, and some troops I’ve spoken with, leads me to think the reporting isn’t just reporting but advocacy.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

Lets see, the American people, the Baker group, the Generals and some gop are against the escalation.

w is betting on Malarki to go against the Shiites.

Not going to happen.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

RE,

You should check out all the nifty exceptions the Democrats carved out in ethics reform. They also left out a few of those pesky 9/11 regulations that talked about restricting Congressional power.

While you’re at it you should know that they exempted anything called emergency spending from paygo, so even though it’s a horrendous idea to even institute the plan they left themselves a big fat loophole.

The only one they will probably get through as advertised is a minimum wage increase that won’t help anybody.

Nice job of worthless feel good liberalism! I’m glad you’re so proud.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

You’re exactly the sort of idiot I’m talking about, as a genuine Red Diaper Baby!

You’re either a Useful Idiot or a member of the “intelligentsia” whose purpose is to destroy our government, and I’m not talking about Bush here.

I also find it amusing how duncelike you are for someone who has spent his entire life in academia.

RW once suggested that you deserve a refund. Take the money and run, rushncap!

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:35 PM | Link to this

rushncap

Better than? At least a bad idea is an idea - and may be the genesis of something better. No idea is just that - nothing. No launching point, no germ of hope, no idea to be developed.

Ever sat in business meetings and listened to the same person, time after time, who dismissed all ideas, said they wouldn’t work and criticized the proponent? But who never did anything but criticize? I see it in the same light.

In all seriousness, I do believe there is an organized strategy on the Democratic leadership’s part to keep this Pres Bush’s problem and not offer anything that could come back to bite them during the ‘08 campaign.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:35 PM | Link to this

Of course the idiot parrot’s “liberals will welcome invaders” was entirely anticipated. Thanks, RW, I can always count on you to be unbelievably dull and predictable. Dance, my little puppet, dance.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:36 PM | Link to this

How beautiful Iraq “is.”

Bill,

Nobody cares about your imaginary friend “George”.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 06:37 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I don’t recall RE ever saying or implying that he served in Iraq, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of the ones that keeps saying this war has lasted as long as WWII so we need to get out. If we had brought all of our troops home on VE and VJ Days we wouldn’t have accomplished a thing in that war.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Don’t depress rushncap. He only wants to hear bad news from Iraq.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

Today’s winner of The Most Lies and Stupidity in One Post, is again, Dusty!!!

The wisdom dripping from her 6:04 stands on its own merits, but for those of you who want to be future winners, note the following recipe - outright lies mixed with a healthy dose of unsubstantiated, ludicrous claims:

Claim: “…while Democrats in Congress do nothing but complain…”

Reality:

The Democratic-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America’s lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade. The vote was 315-116, with 82 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

The House voted on January 5 to enforce budget restrictions under the PAYGO rule, which limits deficit growth by allowing no new spending if it adds to the deficit. One restriction under the rule is that tax cuts must have either corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to fund them.

On January 4, the House passed a measure by a 430-1 vote to ban lawmakers from accepting gifts and free trips from lobbyists and discounted flights on private planes.

“They also forget about the Constitution…”

WTF? More inane ramblings out of left field that she will never back up with ANY evidence. None. Ever. It would require some moderate adult reasoning ability.

I guess because she is such a liar and so utterly senseless, she thinks she deserves a pass. Ha!

And that paragon of chickenhawks, (Oops, I really meant, great retired military commander, and affirmed tactical expert) the bigot, now confidently asserts that the Kerry plan will, at this critical juncture of the invasion, work, and work well. I am so relieved!

Surge! Bigoted idiot! Surge!

By RE

January 10, 2007 06:40 PM | Link to this

Nope never been in Iraq.

When was the last time we had someone killed by enemy action in Germany, South Korea or bosnia.

You are just such a hateful sniping idiot. You clueless hag just hang it up for a while, I’m am sick of your mindless drivel.

You should understand, you are advocating for more americans getting killed in Iraq. There is no victory there. I hope you feel some responsibility for every US soldier killed in Iraq from here on out, every father not returning to his family, every soldier who has to learn to walk on metal legs. Your idiotic support of failure for the sole purpose of supporting a drug and alcohol addled cheerleader from texas is shameful. I am sure you have no conscious, and very few original thoughts. If you did you would put your partisan sniping aside and recognize the world as it is not as your tiny hateful world viw would like it to be

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

RW at 6:31

Thanks for the info on the paygo exemptions and the 9/11 regulations they left out. Let’s see, I don’t recall hearing any exemptions during the campaign. Do ya think Mr. Gore will treat us to a modified repeat of his “They lied to the American people” speech?

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

Upon further review… After finishing “Inherit the Wind” and looking more deeply into the background of the case, a few things have become apparent. First, while the dialogue was fabricated for the stage and some heavy-handed characteristics such as the romantic subplot were added for dramatic effect, most of the details are remarkably close to reality, certainly more so than conservatives like to portray.

Even the most far fetched aspects, such as William Jennings Bryan, the stand-in prosecutor, taking the stand and his subsequent death, actually happened. In addition, some of the most humorous, absurd, and enlightening dialogue, the arguments between the two attorneys, was either in the transcripts or very close to the authentic testimonials. The proceedings really did open with a prayer, and there really was a giant banner in front of the courthouse that read “Read Your Bible.”

The trial was not concocted by the ACLU, as conservatives would have us believe, but by the townspeople to attract attention. But that is not even really relevant. Bryan, the 3-time presidential candidate, was there to legitimately argue against the legality of teaching evolution, and the right was legitimately trying to silence the voice of science. Many statutes are brought before the bench simply to test their constitutionality, and this was just one of them.

The fact that religion was ultimately put on trial was not due to theatrics, but because it deserved to be, since the judge refused to allow genuine scientific evidence to be presented. It is not the fault of the left that the religious right looked idiotic; it is because their silly, false beliefs could not stand up to reasonable examination. If the shoe fits, wear it. Illogic is illogic. Stupidity is stupidity. Lies are lies.

Teaching this drama will allow me to do the things I normally can’t do in a public school classroom- show religion for what it is, question the logic of blind faith, and show students the absurdity inherent in the Medieval thought process of Christians. I’m energized and excited to do that.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

RE,

The Democrats forgot to mention the war in Iraq just like they are going to forget they voted for it.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

There there, Muffin, no need to sputter. You’ll be OK. We’re all proud you’ve earned your MRS degree.

Oh, and I have no intention of spending my whole life in academia. I’m not smart enough, unfortunately. Of course, neither do I plan to spend my life in such a way that someone else’s golf score is my highest accomplishment.

By LuckoDull

January 10, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

Actually Dusty, the democrats in what, 2 days have passed 4 bills already. Increased Minimum wage,

RE: Why do I believe that you probably are among the 2.5% of Americans that benefited form the massive $2 increase in the minimum wage.

The flag amendment had more substance than that.

instituted a pay as you go rule to stop deficeit spending,

This is their chickensh-it way of rolling back the highly successful Bush tax cuts because the libs don’t have the balls to confront the issue head on, but don’t you worry, we’ll get the word out.

instituted all the 9-11 recomendations,

Thank You. Now the next terrorist attack on America belongs to the democrat party. Good luck!

and passed ethics reform for lobbists.

O.K. When do you think that William Jefferson, democrat, Louisiana will be brought to justice under the new rules?

I guess they have made you dullards happy, I’ll give them that.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

Paul, it IS Bush’s problem. What are you, on crack? Who else’s is it (politically, I mean)? Guess what, he got us into such a mess that there is no good solution. That much is obvious to anyone with 1/10th a brain, and an ounce of honesty. Since there are no good ways out, how about we select the bad way that costs the least lives, hmmm?

As for the “bad idea better than no idea” clim: OK. “Hey, what do you want to do tonight?” “I dunno…” or “Hey, what do you want to do tonight?” “Let’s go get drunk and drive off of a cliff!” Which is better?

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

Just wondering, what happened to Granny, rw, & @@’s pledge to boycott this blog? I thought they were fed up, that they’d had it with the vicious liberals. Now the blog is back up to 140 comment a day, even though Andy only chimes in sporadically with his stupidity and no one entertains him anymore. I guess a blog addiction is hard to break, especially if you’re an aging, unemployed, crabby housewife already addicted to vodka. Oh well, they’re always good for entertainment…

By George

January 10, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

The White House simply cannot answer the seminal question: Why should we think things will be different this time?

Hmmmm, Must be more of that “magical thinking”.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

I didn’t even notice this diamond in the rough from earlier!

“I can’t read the button on the guy’s jacket (Mark Mc???) so the cartoon makes no sense to me, but whatever it’s supposed to mean, it’s in poor taste and any criticism of ML is “Richly Deserved”.”

I don’t know what such and such means, but I know I don’t like it and I’ll use it as an excuse to show my complete ignorance on an endless number of topics and my consuming hatred for all of things I don’t understand.

Very wise. Very level-headed. Very neo-con. Very bigoted.

Just keep showing your enormous a*, bigot, it is endlessly entertaining!

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:52 PM | Link to this

If you’d like to end the day on a lighter note, here’s a link of an imam telling us how to properly beat our wives and telling wives what to expect in the way of correction:

Link: http://www.vidmax.com/index.php/videos/view/264

I know, I know. They’re just like we are. Really peaceful and respectful of minorities, women and nonbelievers.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

Huge, baby, relax.

Democrats have been costing on the minor issues like they were the war of the worlds. But they are not

What they did not touch with a ten foot pole was IRAQ. Remember?? Remember that WAR THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR??? huh huh huh??

Liberals are simply waiting for Bush to make his speech so they can say they want the troops home. That is known as CUT’N’RUN. They will call it something else. Probably already have it written down.

But, babble on, baby. By any other name, it is still called Cut’n’Run. The terrorists are counting on you liberals to give them a victory.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Ordinarily I would say that, of course we won’t hear that from Gore, but he’s totally deranged and just might do it.

The real lunacy was Pelosi not allowing Republicans to offer amendments and then sneaking in all these exemptions. She could have done it and blamed it on having to compromise, now she has to own it.

How long is this 100 hours anyway? We’ll be finished in Iraq by the time this is over.

rushncap,

I’m not impressed by the newest lefty censorship trick that you and dozens of your herd have employed lately. It won’t work, but continue trying to cover your embarrassment by playing Carnac.

I’ll make a deal with you. Next time you’re anticipating my response I’ll agree to post it at exactly the same time you agree to post what you just knew I was going to say.

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 06:56 PM | Link to this

Ah Granny, still trying to argue that invading Iraq was justified? One day you will have to admit that it was a monumental mistake and out of all those with the wrong opinion, you are among the most incorrect. I hope you get to see that moment and that old age doesn’t take you in the next 2 or 3 years before that revelation comes. No, not that Revelation.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

RW, I have no idea what the supposed “censorship” trick is, so I’ll ignore your bleating there. And I’m not interested in making deals with you. I have no desire to help you. I just like to watch you dance.

By LuckoDull

January 10, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

Tiny little Ethiopia destroyed what Bill Clinton cowered and ran from:

Fanatical dreams of re-establishing - and extending - the Muslim caliphate on the African continent are suddenly in shambles. Far from impressing the world with its strength, extremist Islam just revealed its inherent weakness again: Average Muslims don’t like it and won’t defend it.

It’s time for a new game.

Call it dead terrorists.

Tell us the score Mr. Bush.

By Paul

January 10, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

rushncap at 6:49

And you were doing so well with your arguments today…

Of course the war is the Executive’s baliwick. My point from early on was the Democratic Party campaigned on/against the war, swept to victory in Congress, and now it’s just the same old, same old. I truly hoped for something better but it seems to be political posturing, as usual.

You have an interesting idea regarding selecting even a bad way out as long as it saves lives. I’m sure you can offer something. Speaker Pelosi won’t. That’s not a defense of Pres Bush, either.

Good idea/bad idea. I’d settle for a plain old idea.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Ignore rushncap.

Pelosi will make a nice speech, raise her clenched fist and say that women will win this war. Maybe she will get a chance to kiss a few babies.

Good thing Bush is making a speech. Pelosi would have real trouble finding a killer topic to impress the cut’n’run crowd. I think it would be nice for Pelosi to invite Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda. They are such impressive liberals. They’d get a lot of applause.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

RE,

You’re in no position to call someone else “mindless”.

You’re advocating that we quit. Period. With no thought to what would happen when we did, not just to Iraq but to the entire region.

Adding troops does not equate to more causualties unless we were to leave tomorrow, but we’d be back there eventually so we’d just be postponing the inevitable - just as we’re back in Somalia now, and we’re back in Iraq because we didn’t get rid of Hussein the first time around.

There is no magic wand to wave. The world is a very dangerous place, and it is not Bush who made it that way.

Punk Stalker Boy,

You deserve to be fired for gross incompetence, and then thrown in the sanitarium. As a special treat you could have a cell next to Bonnie Scott Finchie.

As for “boycotting” this blog, no one ever said they were going to. I said that I didn’t feel like playing with people who wear suicide vests, and I still feel that way.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 07:02 PM | Link to this

Dusty — brilliant. If this was was a success, it’s Bush’s glory moment. Since it’s an utter failure — hey, the Dems voted for it too! It’s lovely when you can’t lose, Dusty.

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 07:05 PM | Link to this

Paul,

The Islamic extremists aren’t just like AMERICANS; they’re just like Christian fundamentalists. And I don’t recall anyone saying that they support the Islamists’ crazy beliefs, just that we never needed to inject ourselves into the middle of their mess. We should have gone after the ones who attacked us- Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We weren’t in the right to go into Iraq, and because of that, no good will ever come of it. It IS Bush’s fiasco and there aren’t any real good solutions. He manipulated the evidence (criminally) and this was his choice. As far as I’m concerned the American public should view supporters and rationalizers like yourself and rw as co-conspirators.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 07:08 PM | Link to this

Stalker Boy,

I’ve already had a revelation and that is that you are an insane little punk who has no life of his own so you stalk me when you’re not acting out your role as Professor Pecker Stalker.

By rushncap

January 10, 2007 07:08 PM | Link to this

2 things, Paul. First of all, if the bad idea cost the lives of YOUR loved ones, you might be a touch less cavalier about it, I would bet. Second of all, Democrats have been in power for what, 3 days? Bush has had over 3.5 years. Maybe you should give the Dems slightly more time, huh?

Muffin, feeling a bit jealous that Paul is ignoring your rants? Don’t worry, honey, consider it good practice. Your kids will do that soon too, once they reach an age where they start reasoning for themselves.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 07:09 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Are you planning to vote for me on dancing with the stars now? The fortunate thing for you is that I’ve been destroying your arguments for a year and a half, but ml only keeps a year of archives.

Of course you won’t take that deal because you know it would only make you look like an idiot. What I don’t understand is why you suddenly care. You make yourself look like an idiot on a daily basis, with or without my help.

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 07:10 PM | Link to this

Granny,

Is that why are unemployed, because you were fired for gross incompetence? Please forgive me if I ignore the critique of an aging, unemployed, blog-addicted housewife who does nothing but habitually prove that she is divorced from reality. Considering that your beliefs are the ones that most closely resemble the Islamic extremists, it would appear you and your ilk are the ones most likely to be donning suicide vests. Seen the movie “Jesus Camp”? That’s you, Granny.

By One Voice

January 10, 2007 07:11 PM | Link to this

Granny, One day you’ll say something intelligent. We all wait.

By Huge

January 10, 2007 07:12 PM | Link to this

“Costing on the minor issues?”

You neo-con scumbags have pretty much wrecked everything you’ve touched in the past 12 years. Domestically, fiscally, socially and especially internationally.

And you gnash your teeth and wonder why practically everybody on the whole planet wishes you an early demise.

It’s going to take a helluva lot more than 100 hours to repair the sh!thole you and your slimeball “leaders” have created.

Your golden age has come and gone and the entire country is celebrating!

So while RW bleats about holes in the legislation (and fossil record!), he is, of course, unwilling to recognize that ethics reform can probably only be accomplished in steps. Nor admit that his “heroes” were some of the filthiest, slimiest people ever elected to office and who took corruption to unforeseen heights.

So, for the supporters of a gang who didn’t even TRY to do the right things while in office, you are a pathetic and laughable lot.

But America knows that we’re moving in the right direction now, and we’re very, very happy to be leaving you hate-filled, bigoted fools further and further behind.

Enjoy the view.

By RW-(the original)

January 10, 2007 07:14 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

The Democrats campaigned saying they had ALL the answers and ALL the plans and would gladly tell us after they got our vote. I find it hard to believe that so many bought that pig in a poke, but there’s no reason Paul or anyone else should have to wait now.