Thinking Right

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

Well, General Casey’s been a font of reliable, objective information so far, so I have NO reason to doubt his findings.

After all, he’s a soldier, so he knows best. Just like Kevin Tillman.

By Mid-South Philosopher

October 25, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

While I agree that Rumsfeld’s strategy for winning the initial conflict, (i.e, defeating the Iraqi Army) was the correct one, the notion that the “occupation” has been anything other than a gross failure is fantasy. We now have troops returning to Iraq for their “third” tour of duty!

It all boils down to the fact that the members of the Bush Administration, who are dealing with this, must have NOT had any world history courses above thoses offered in the 10th grade of high school. Unfortunaltely, I don’t see any other option now, so, likely we will increase our troops and will be there for until the attack from North Korea.

On an entirely different matter, with respect to Rush Limbaugh’s observation that Michael J. Fox’s performance in a political ad favoring embryonic stem cell research was the result of the latter being off his medication or just doing a good job of acting, I only have this to say. While Fox’s politics is not my own, I have had some experience with Parkinson’s disease in my family. It is not pleasant, especially if one cannot afford the high priced medical care to which Fox, no doubt, has access. On the other hand, how can we tell when the pompous hypocrite, Limbaugh, is “off” his medication!

By jbmlaw

October 25, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. Perhaps I am out of sync with reality, but I think the solution to Iraq is not to send signals that we are pulling out as soon as feasible, but rather to suggest we will be there on a scale and time comparable to our post-Nazi presence in Germany. Rather than give some hope to the killers that they may again have free rein in Iraq, we need to make them think this is going to be harder than they think. It would not matter whether we actually station forces there forever (as in Germany – why are we still there?), it is only important that we give the impression that our presence may be nearly permanent.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 25, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Mid-South,

I heard part of that Rush show yesterday while walking to the store, and what I’m interested in is this: what plan or piece of legislation is it that he referred to when saying that the “left” wants to kill old people because they’re inconvenient? I’m not familiar with that.

And per Jim’s topic today, it’s such a shame that Clinton botched all this Iraq stuff up. If only the GOP had been in charge, being that they’re so good with wars and such.

By Jim Wooten

October 25, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Morning all. Later in the week, I get a chance to interview Condoleezza Rice for 30 minutes. If you have any pressing questions, other than whether she’ll be a candidate for president in 2008, which she’s answered repeatedly, let me know. I may pick two or three from the blog, record the answers and report back.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Here’s question: How would she describe the difference between being Secretary of War (oops, I mean Defense) and now being Secretary of State?

That’s assuming she’s aware that there IS a difference, of course.

By Mid-South Philosopher

October 25, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Further to my 8:20 A.M. post:

The way to have handled the “occupation” in Iraq would have been to have had a “Allied Proconsul” (perhaps a British or an Australian leader as an American would likely have been perceived as a “dictator”) for a more extended time. The borders could have been secured, the infrastructure could have been rebuilt, and the economic structure could have been repaired. Only now, under that scenario would “elections” ahve been happening. We moved “too” quickly to establish a national Iraqi government. It took Doug MacArthur over five and one-half years to rehabilitate the Japanese.

Americans just do not grasp the intricacies of the Eastern mind.

By Van

October 25, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Condi was National Security Advisor before Secratary of State, she was never Secratary of Defense. Or do all conservative politicans look alike to you?

By GodHatesTrash

October 25, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Stumpbroke redneck trash don’t grasp the intracacies of anything.

By Political Foreskin

October 25, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

What can the Iraqi Police/Army do that US troops cant do in Baghdad?

We are looking at a 30 years war here.

I spotted this impending draft three years ago, because I knew that BP Oil would have to secure the pipelines eventually. We’re there. Expect a draft by spring, and expect talk of a draft to hit the round tables within days after the election. Till then, SHHHH! (dont say the D word).

One thing that astonishes me, is in the videos of the assassination of US troops that CNN despicably aired. Did anyone notice what a bustling city Baghdad is? People are driving around living their lives. It’s like the war is just slowing down traffic a bit, but everything else is fine. The “civil war” may just go away, because it’s not getting the attention you think a civil war would get and people just drive by.

A drive-by civil war? We only have drive-by shootings. That’s not fair. I’d like to get me one of them there drive-by civil wars. They must have drive-in ammo dumps. A waitress in a burqa skates out to your parked car with a tray of grenades, AK-47 bullets, and a menu of the different demographic virgins available in the afterlife. The waitress points to the pictures: “What you like today?” (Yes, I’d like blondes with blue eyes, and a box of dum dum shells, please). “You like big noses, black mascara, and lots of facial hair?” (no, I like blonds with blue eyes). “Oh! We got just what you looking for: all kind of types… Big nose, black mascara, and facial hair! See here? Big nose…..facial hair…..black mascara….” (Uh, no, I want blue eyes and blonde hair, thank you). “Ohhh! You tough customer! Look here…we got something special just for you….big nose….facial hair……black mascara…..”

One more thing. If this war does end in peace and the rival factions sit down and peacefully share the country and it’s oil, I promise that I will eat the stillborn cheeklint from the rear end of a gay suma wrestler. (live on Utube) That’s a guarantee. You may sue me in civil court if I welch on this one.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 25, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

This is fun!

Ask her if she’s comfortable with the US being involved in nation-building to the extent that we currently are. And if so, take the Sudan…could we reshape it in our image if we wanted to?

Or…

Ask her if the current administration ever really expected to be able to manage the myriad of social, religious and violent variables that present themselves when taking over a fundamentalist state used to being ruled by a dictatorship. Is there a handbook on that, and if so did we read it?

By Mid-South Philosopher

October 25, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Jim,

When you interview Secretary Rice you will be dealing with one of the more intellectually gifted members of the Bush Administration. She is dreadfully loyal to “Georgie,” so you will not get anything critical about him out of her. That being said, I would like for you to explore the notion of “post” Bush diplomacy. Does she have any innovative ideas about how to combat the ideology of Islamist Fanaticism”? Is there a danger that in combating Islamist Fanaticism, we may instill in our children and grandchildren a “Western” fanaticism (Christian or otherwise)? What does she see for the long term for improving our perception by Latin American nations? Can we develop a 21st Century “good neighbor” policy and image?

She is too smart to be President, but she can be a mover and shaker for years to come.

By Political Foreskin

October 25, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Ask her if our media (TV. Movies. Cartoons), stereotyped Muslims (Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, Aladin)) as unfairly as they stereotyped blacks in this country.

By Van

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

Mid-South Philosopher,

I agree, with you on this. We have become use to solving things too quickly and not taking the tried and true approach.

On the other hand, Japan was a destroyed country, beaten and surrendered to the US.

Iraq has not been beatened down to next to nothing. They have not been literally destroyed.

It might take the Iraqi’s a little longer to grasp what is happening.

By DebbieDoRight

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

jbmlaw: We’re still in Germany because of the treaty we signed to end the war. Since Germany was the aggressor in two world wars back to back, they, according to our treaty will always be “occipied”.

Jim Wooten: A question for Condoleeza? How about why the flip flop on Iraq before 9/11? Before 9/11 all the GOP upper echeleon stated continuously and emphatically, (on television no less), that the sanctions against Saddam were working as well as the vigorous chemical inspection policies in place by NATO and that he was unable to wage war with anyone because of those reasons; he was in effect, null and void. Then after 9/11 viola! Everything changed — now he’s not only an instigating force behind terrorism, (although 95% of the hijackers were of Suadi descent), he also had WMD’s! With the advent of television and real time reporting, how did they, Presidential Cabinet, think they were going to get away with that sort of hat trick? (Since I know you’ll NEVER ask her that question, too much REAL journalism for you, here’s another one).

Question for Condeleeza: Who does her hair?

By CJ

October 25, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Will you ask Secretary Rice how much longer it’ll take President Bush to figure out that the six party talks aren’t working with North Korea?

Will you ask her if she realizes that the sanctions just passed by the U.N. aren’t going to work with N. Korea? These sanctions were an important step and an important statement, but by themselves, they won’t work.

Will you ask her when the Bush administration is going to swallow their pride and realize that she and the President are in over their heads on North Korea? (as they are on Iraq and the Palestinian issue).

Will you ask her to bring in some outside professionals on the Korean issue? I’m thinking of James Baker, Bill Richardson, Dick Perry, Jimmy Carter, President Clinton, Madeline Albright and Bush 41 as possibilities. Not ideologues. Pragmatists.

Will you ask her when the national security team is going to realize that Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and stop listening to their advice?

By Political Foreskin

October 25, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Ask her what she thinks of the terrorist groups like the KKK and the White Aryan Supremacists that live openly right here in the good ole USA.

Ask her if maybe Uncle Sam should bring justice to it’s own damn country before it spreads the beneficient wealth of democracy to the desert sands of Iraq?

Ask her if she knows anyone in her own family who was called the N word? or discriminated against for a job promotion. Or forced to leave a restaurant because some YAHOOS were in there stinking the place up?

Ask her what she thinks of white bread neo-cons and their theo-political shenanigans?

Ask her if she thinks that you, Jim Wooten, are a cracker.

Lets get real here. We are in the midst of a catastrophe that is cascading through our entire political spectrum and redefining the boundaries between what is domestic policy and what is foreign policy. As Secretary of State, how much allegience to domestic matters can she pledge when her attention is so focused on the world and their problems and their needs.

Or ask her if she watches Oprah…your call.

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

I don’t know who this DebbieDoRight chick is, but I dig her style.

By Political Foreskin

October 25, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Boxers or Briefs?

By Southern Democrat

October 25, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Congrats on landing the interview! I would love to ask Secretary Rice if she thinks there is any linkage between a perceived reduction in U.S. soft power after the Iraq invasion and the recent rash actions of both Kim Jong Il and President Putin of Russia? Also, what is our current policy stance towards Russian accession to the WTO?

Finally, does she think that increasing free trade with Latin America will help our interests there and isolate dictators like Chavez and Morales or is more required to help stabilize the region?

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Van: I never said she was. I asked if she knew there was a difference.

By Southern Democrat

October 25, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

I think that your 1945 Germany + Marshall Plan analogy is an apt one, but for Afghanistan and not Iraq. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is a very serious problem (in addition to the staggering amount of opiates being produced) and is potentially undoing the progress we made from 2001 onward. We need to (along with NATO) recommit ourselves to stabilizing Afghanistan (which was, incidentally, the largest training ground for terrorists).

Your analogy is not as apt for Iraq, in my opinion. Of course our initial military strategy was correct, the facts demonstrate that. What the facts also demonstrate, however, is a lack of hard intelligence and prescient strategy outlining exactly how Iraq would transition from an autocracy ruling over warring ethnic factions to a functioning representative democracy. It is the combination of these failures on the policy level that, in my opinion, are inexcusable and have cost hundreds of thousands of lives (American and Iraqi).

One other point to consider, too, for my conservative colleagues who extoll the virtue of bringing democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq: read their constitutions / foundation documents. They are both explicitly grounded in Islam and it is still against the law in Afghanistan to convert to Christianity. Freedom?

Let’s hand over control to the Iraqis and renew our commitment to Afghanistan.

By Van

October 25, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

CJ,

Just a question for you.

Would North Koreas listen better to its neighbors who have a vested interest or someone on the other side of the world?

Would North Korea listen to China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US or just the US by itself?

By Jim's a Distractor

October 25, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Foreskin,

Ha!

How about “Thongs or Bloomers?”

By JK

October 25, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, please remind Sec. Rice that Wolfowitz said the oil pumping capacity of Iraq is 2 million barrels a day. Then ask her who EXACTLY is operating and monitoring the pumps and pipelines, and where the pipes go, and who gets the oil on the other end, and where do they send it, and what kind of money they’re making off it, and why isn’t that money being used to reimburse the American taxpayers like we were told, and why are our troops making meager pay to stand guard over highly-paid contractors who also benefit receive our tax dollars, but who cannot produce audit trails or receipts for the money they suck from our treasury, and by the way, WHO EXACTLY IS PUMPING, PIPING, SELLING, AND MONITORING THE OIL FLOW, and where does all that money go? Thanks!

By ed lorenzo

October 25, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

INTERVIEW WITH MADAME SECRETAIRE

“Good morning Madame Secretary General! You look tres chic!”

Wrapped in a Carolina Herrera cape with a Hermé scarf and a printed silk Modelaire sheath she looked stunning. Clearly in a sunny disposition, she smiled and said:

“Bon jour, journaliste avec la conviction de l’esprit n’entraine pas toujours celle Coeur!”

I immediately regretted the French word I used in greeting her. Her French is impeccable while mine remains at the “carte du jour” level. I was impressed by her new look; it was a marked contrast with her Security Council wardrobe of recent times.

“I am not going to ask you what you have been doing. You have replaced the movie and jet set stars in the news. All for the collective good, I trust”

“Absolutely, darling. These days you have to be on your toes not to miss any one of those fabulous shows in Montenapoleone, rue Saint Honoré, Paseo de Gracia, the Banhoffstrasse or Regent Street. Besides, the new designers are a heavenly lot and are coming out with great new leather creations, silk combinations that even the Italians envy and the cutest hats!”

It was nice to hear Condi with a new script. Her previous ones were tiring pronouncements probably penned by old Karl. Except that this time little mention was made of the major international concerns she was supposed to be involved in. I said so.

“Darling” she said in her best Lauren Bacall imitation “I was telling dear Claire of the Dior gang, you know, at the cocktail party given by Prince Abensperg von Traun in the Saint Moritz Chalet of the Iron Greek Panayiotis that the only way to solve the world’ s problems is if there are more charity galas, balls, fashion shows, polo tournaments and safaris to the Matto Grosso. So much money could be collected that half the poor countries would start their own events!”

“How about Iraq? North Korea? The other countries in the latest axis of evil?

“Rummie just told me that Dick said that the insurgents are in their last throes. So, in a couple of months we will organize the Baghdad Film Festival, a Fashion Show and a great Camel Barbecue. John Bolton at the UN will take care of the other evil ones. And as far as natural disasters like hurricanes is concerned, Michael Chertoff is now drawing plans to help the poor at the next hurricane which, according to the CIA will take place in 25 years!”

Somehow, I liked the old Condie much better.

By Van

October 25, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Then you question was faulty -

“…the difference between being Secretary of War (oops, I mean Defense) and now being Secretary of State?”

I thought you were smarter than to make that obvious an error.

By time for the truth

October 25, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

If the General didn’t opine somewhat positively about Iraqis assuming FULL responsibility for their own security in a year or so the leftist cut and runners would be screeching that he has NO idea when this might/will occur. The truth is NO ONE actually knows for sure - thus for purely cynical political reasons the leftist scum are trying (still somewhat preemptively) to precipitate a withdrawal without much regard for actual conditions on the ground. Its clearly a sensitive (and therefore way beyond liberals) balancing act between ensuring the Iraqis dont drag this out and merely dupe the US and the UK et al into absorbing casualties unnecessarily whilst ensuring the Iraqis are actually ready to do this and are not overrun by mohammedan fascists and murderous mohammedan militias.

It also requires that the Iraqis grow a collective pair and actually DIRECTLY confront the killers - most of whom are well known to their govt. I saw a US colonel on the telly last night saying that he’d been ordered not to locally militarily confront a certain militia - whatever they do. This kind of mohammedan political interferemce is pathetic and only prolongs the mohammedan fascist murdering.

Until the pussyfooting around for cultural and political reasons ceases Iraq will not change.

Most Iraqis at least (locally) are happy enough with the allied presence - it still means and certainly has meant reconstruction projects, improved localised emergency medical care for folks and all the other unreported (by pinko cut and runners) benefits that liberating forces bring with them.

The pathetic ignorant comments about Senor Limbaugh are beneath contempt. Fox states in his book that before making important speches or ads he deliberately goes off his meds to ensure he cuts as pathetic and sympathy inducing a figure as possible … which is the typical liberal way of doing things … the utterly dishonest way. Rush actually read out this Fox quote before he made his astute observations about Fox’s penchant for the moveon.org style of campaigning. Still the pinko scum ignore that fact and twist what what was said!!

Please ask Ms Rice why she always allows the liberal and black racebaiting about the purely incidental fact of her being black to go unanswered. Contrast this with the pathetic, unremitting liberal/black shrill hypocrisy when occasionally a GOP type makes a remark that liberals/blacks always noisily deem “racist” even when its just legitimate criticism.

Also ask her why she doesn’t speak out against the smug idiocoy of leftist morons in the senate (too many to list here) who keep witlessly parotting the need to “talk” to everyone … there was years of “talking” about Iraq at the UN and nothing came of it except the biggest ever corruption/fraud scandal in the world.

The klinton/karter combo “talked” to N Korea and look how eefective they were back then. Nations, especially rogue nations do whatever they want to, or are allowed to - until somebody STOPS THEM!! And stopping them is invariably not achieved by weak appeasing lefties “talking” to them. The lefties after all this time are still gutlessly hiding behind the UN - which is anti-American, worthless and useless. Ask Ms Rice about that please!!

By brother devildog

October 25, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

I was in the marine corp for 6 years and went to the first gulf war. I think we should pull out of iraq. I do believe that we will never turn iraq around or establish a successful iraq army and government. My fellow service members are being killed and permanetly disabled over politics. I still never will understand why we didnt go after osama bin ladin first. Oh thats right bush jr. had a personnal mission for his father bush sr. Ask condolizza rice this: Why do service members recieve such low pay and wages? Dont they and their families deserve a higher pay? After all they are dying daily and getting disabled every day. They deserve alot better of a pay plan if the United States wants to continue to be the big bad war loving country. Also get some real chaplains on the battle field, god and jesus need to be a general in this war and the service members need a personnal relationship with the almighty jesus christ so when they do get blown up, their family will know that they have gone to a better place. We need a revival on the battle field.

By Simply Reasonable

October 25, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

What has invading Iraq accomplished? Saddom is out of power, but he killed fewer Iraqi people per day than are currently being killed in Iraq; American troops are on the ground in an Arab country, giving us a foothold, but we are now averaging four dead americans per day; Iraq is still exporting oil, but they are producing less oil now than prior to the invasion; There are fewer if any suicide bombing in israel than when saddom was paying 20,000 dollars to the families of successful bombers, but there are many more suicide bombing in Iraq; the arab world hated america and its policies prior to the invasion, now they hate and dispise america and are trying to kill our troops everywhere. So now the question: Will more american troops improve the situation in Iraq? In my opinion, none of the above will improve, but many will get worse with more american targets on the ground, and more opportunity for atrocities by our troops. So who is the winner is this invasion: Not America, Not Iraq, the only possible winner is Israel with fewer Saddom paid suicide bombers. Fewer Israeli’s are being killed, but far more americans and Iraqi’s are dying.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Iraq was lost when Iraq allied with Iran. The rest is a waste of lives and money. We should have never invaded Iraq, stayed and finished the job in Afghanistan to get the ones responsible for 9/11.

We should be talking about accountability for Iraq and get rid of these people in government and the military. When you fail miserably at your job you get fired.

By JK

October 25, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

What has invading Iraq accomplished?

If we had the answers to my questions at 9:50, we might have the answer to your question, not only “what” but “for whom.” Nothing goes on for 3 and a half years with no end in sight unless there’s a nice profit in it for somebody. Doesn’t happen.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Could you ask Sec. Rice about our current status with Venezuela? Are we going to use the Cuba policy of disconnection? How are American oil companies going to continue to deal with an apparently communistic government and keep the oil flowing?

By Talon News

October 25, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jim, congrats on your Condi interview, you will really like her. One word of advice, don’t mention the leather outfit, she’s embarrassed about it. She normally doesn’t wear such things. She did it for me, Condi was my guest at a private social event.

Anyway, keep giving those Libby Libs Hell!

BTW, if I were asking the questions I’d ask, “What is an in-law? – you’ve said you are going to reach out to these people, – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Say hi to Con for me.

Jeff…O~O

By Realist

October 25, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Jim, To elaborate on JK’s conspiratorial questions of Rice, Id also ask has she actually seen the alien bodies and space ships that the government hides in gaurded warehouses, and if she has seen the “real” Kennedy assasination report implicating the CIA as the true killers. Oh, and the crop circles thing.

Thanks.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Please ask the same question Wallace asked Clinton to prove Clinton wrong.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is…

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?

I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke?

I want to know how many people you asked…

WALLACE: We asked — we asked…

CLINTON: I don’t…

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

Ask her why they did nothing to stop 9/11 Jim.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Ask her the big question Jim.

Why did we invade Iraq?

By getalife

October 25, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Ask her why we continue to stay in Iraq after they allied with Iran?

Ask her when will there be accountability for Iraq?

Ask her where the missing billions went in Iraq?

Ask her if it is worth the losses in Iraq?

Ask her to tell the truth because we are sick of the lies.

By CJ

October 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Southern Democrat @9:28 - A minor correction, if you please. Chavez and Morales were both elected in free and fair elections. Whether or not we like their policies, they’re not dictators.

Van @9:38 - The answer to your first question is someone on the other side of the world. The answer to your second question is the U.S. by itself.

Direct talks between North Korea and the U.S. are unavoidable; it will happen. The longer we put it off, the more dangerous North Korea becomes.

The six-party talks, on the other hand, are actually a ruse to make us think that the Bush Administration is actually doing something. You fell for it. These talks haven’t worked, they’re not going to work, and they were never expected to work.

By JK

October 25, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Mister Realist, I’ve missed you. How nice that you return and put me in my place. {;->

By DebbieDoRight

October 25, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Time For Truth:Please ask Ms Rice why she always allows the liberal and black racebaiting about the purely incidental fact of her being black to go unanswered. Contrast this with the pathetic, unremitting liberal/black shrill hypocrisy when occasionally a GOP type makes a remark that liberals/blacks always noisily deem “racist” even when its just legitimate criticism.

Huh? Dang Truth, do you like ANYBODY??

Dusty:How are American oil companies going to continue to deal with an apparently communistic government and keep the oil flowing?

Judging by history, Business men can make a deal with the devil if they have to. As long as they get a profit out of it.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Ask her what will we do when the Taliban get Pakistan’s nukes?

Ask her what we will do to stop the Taliban comeback since they have a safe haven in Pakistan?

Ask her when we will talk directly to North Korea and Iran about their nukes?

Ask her if the “axis of evil” threats have given Iran and North Korea a reason to have nukes?

My guess is you will ask Jeff Gannon type questions and lob a few softball questions to Condi.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 25, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Greetings, rednecks and decent folk, it is I, the Pope. Back from my adventures in AZ, Vegas, and upstate NY for a funeral and a family reunion, alas, I am back in Georgia, where the goobernatorial contest is between the Big Guy and a pig of a grown man named Sonny.

Greetings and salutations to the Order of the Yellow Stripe, the cowardly chickenhawks too scared to fight for their primitive beliefs, to the filthy stumpbroke violent drunken incestuous mother and father-rapers, sister and brother-rapers and child molesters that make up the vast majority of the “modern” GOP voters.

You people sicken me with your mantras of hate and fear. Animals.

Lord, deliver from this plague of stupidity and fear, from the hatemongers, the fearmongers, the whoremongers and child molesters that infest our country’s leadership, the followers of the Devil Dumbya. Send him and them to Hell where they belong, in Jesus’s Holy Name we pray. Amen.

By JW

October 25, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

In light of your blind support for an utterly incompetent administration, the notion that you would ask her a “tough” question is laughable. You are not a journalist. Why waste your breath with a Hannity-esque a* kissing “interview”?

By getalife

October 25, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

China is a communist country. We are in major debt and buy billions of their goods. The gop loves China so your question is hypocritical.

By Richard

October 25, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Did any of you see the news report last night?

Jim Wooten was given a DWHA by the cops.

If you don’t know what a DWHA is, it’s Driving While your Head’s up your @ss.

By War Whore for Bush

October 25, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Please, Mr. Wooten, tell Ms. Rice to keep up the good fight - my Halliburton stock is doing very well. I just wash the blood off my money and it spends the same as always.

Can’t wait for the October surprise - what will Dubya let them blow up next?

By getalife

October 25, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Ask Condi if the invasion of Iraq and Lebanon has emboldened the enemy and increased recruits for terrorism?

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Well, Debbie,

You may be right but I don’t see us dealing with Cuba. And I see some of the local “devils” going to jail, such as Skilling and others.

Business that doesn’t make a profit isn’t around very long. Maybe Sec. Rice can give us some ideas about keeping the oil flowing from Venezuela without making deals with the devilish one.

I don’t know “how”. That’s why I would ask Sec. Rice.

By Chazman

October 25, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

OK…Let’s try this one more time.

I mistakenly attributed the quote “You can support the troops without supporting the President” to Trent Lott. It was actually Tom Delay.

Now the question is, do you agree with Tom Delay or not? Was he wrong when he said this? It’s a simple yes or no answer.

Your response yesterday:

Chazman,

Did you ask me a question? I just read that you asked me a question about supporting what Trent Lott stated.

Trent Lott is no longer in politics and has no bearing on what I think. Now if your father has discontent with the Iraq War that’s his business. I just hope he isn’t running around Crawford,TX carrying protest signs and telling the world the USA is one big hunk of trouble. Then go to communist Chavez in Venezuela and give him a big kiss for smearing the USA. Yes, Chazman, I do not consider that *Support for the Troops. Do you?

First of all, Trent Lott is still in politics. He is a current Senator from Mississippi. I noticed how you dodged the answer by stating since he is no longer in politics, he has no bearing on what you think. That wasn’t the question. The question was do you agree with what Delay said when Bill Clinton was in office. Do You?

And talk about classic spin. You go from me stating my father, a former POW, disagreeing with Iraq policy, to this: I just hope he isn’t running around Crawford,TX carrying protest signs and telling the world the USA is one big hunk of trouble. Then go to communist Chavez in Venezuela and give him a big kiss for smearing the USA.

That’s pathetic. Let me just say, no, my father is not carrying signs in Crawford, Texas. Not everyone who disagrees with the administration with being in Iraq, or the many reasons we were given for being there, goes around carrying signes in Crawford.

Just answer the question Dusty. Do you agree with the Delay statement “You can support the troops without supporting the president.” Yes or No. It’s not that hard. If you don’t agree with what Tom Delay said during Clinton’s presidency, just say so. Still waiting on the answer…….

By Rod

October 25, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Hold on - HOld on

Does anyone in here honestly believe that Jim’s going to ask Secretary Rice a real question? One with bite? One that matters?

I’ve seen his notes, these are the questions he’s planning:

1) What’s that lovely perfume you’re wearing?

2) Do you regret not trying to get the NFL Commish’s job?

3) Do you have any additional boasting lies about Bush’s job performance you’d like me to expound on in my column?

By @@

October 25, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Jim: I’d love for you to ask Secretary Rice why she doesn’t address the public more often on the Transformational Diplomacy that Colin Powell initiated, and that she and President Bush are carrying forward.

It certainly speaks to the global issues facing us in the 21st century.

There’s no place to hide anymore, it’s a small world on a global scale.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 25, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten is one of the last holdovers from the Atlanta Urinal, the afternoon “conservative” paper that merged with the Constitution. He’s a longtime bloviator for redneck and kkkonservative causes. Of course, when Massuh Jim started for the Urinal, it was just after the good old days when a nice white man like hisself would not have sat down with a colored woman like Condie, lessen it was for some miscegenation and horizontal integration…

Not holding my breath for anything of substance from this interview…

By Th

October 25, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

The idea that Maliki will disarm the militias is divorced from reality. He serves at the pleasure of the leaders of the two main Shiite militias, Sadr and Hakim, and the leaders of the Kurdish armies, Talabani and Barzani. The Iraqi army is made up of these militias. Talabani and Barzani have made their peace with each other for now, but Sadr and Hakim are in a death struggle to see who gets to run Iraq. Staying in Iraq is only putting off the inevitable. Five years after we leave, the situation will be the same whether we stay one more year or ten more years. Yugoslavia is the best example I can think of for what comes next. The insurgents are not so much fighting us as trying to get us out of their way.

Do not be fooled by street scenes in Iraq. I had a physics prof in college who grew up in Dresden during WWII. He showed us a photo of his friends and himself playing soccer in a dirt lot while firemen were putting out the fires in the buildings in the background that were bombed the night before. His stories of life then were clear; life goes on.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Chazman: Dusty ducked a very similar question from me yesterday: “Is it the responsibility of Americans to do nothing when the government sends troops on a foolish, illegal, and unnecessary mission?”

Dusty replied by insisting that Iraq didn’t qualify… but you’ll note that she didn’t actually answer the question.

I’m doubtful that she can, but then she’s left with the assumption that NO war, NO military intervention, under ANY circumstances, is EVER illegitimate. And I don’t think anyone will buy that.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Ask her if Barney still wants to stay the course.

By Wag the Mutt's Tail

October 25, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Ask Condi if Bush plans to attack Iran just prior to the election, hoping for a wave of patriotic fervor to retain the house. Ask Condi if a sneak attack on an american ship will be staged to justify an american politically motivated attack on a soverign government.

By Kathy Bates

October 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Please Ms Rice how it feels to be a political whore for the GOP.

By Th

October 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Bush administration is seriously considering altering course in Iraq. They know people have lost all faith in their conduct of the war and all this carrying on is just a smoke screen that allows the people who should know better to pretend that Bush has a handle on the situation and will make the right changes. This is all about the elections and then no changes will be made. It’s still, “stay the course.”

By Cletus Snow

October 25, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Yes we need a lot more troops and a lot more force to bring this problem to a cobclusion asap

By getalife

October 25, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Ask her if there is a civil war in Iraq and what does stay the course mean.

By Draft all the Wooten Males

October 25, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

and send them to Iraq, where they will fight until they are dead, dead, dead.

By Akbar

October 25, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

The American Empire will be forever broken in the deserts of the Middle East, and in the sea’s off Iran. Allah Akbar!!

By dave

October 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Besides the elections, what progress has been made in the security situation in Iraq in the last two years?

By Markus

October 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Personally, I don’t give a damn what the jackass left thinks about Iraq or North Korea or Iran. The left b!tches when there “aren’t enough troops” in Iraq out of one side and then b!tches about wanting an immediate pullout from the other side of their two-faced selves. The left b!tches when we Bush uses a 6-nation round table when attempting to deal with North Korea, then b!itches out the other side when Bush “hints” (that the media made up) that he might bomb North Korea. The left b!tches when Bush calls Iran an “Axis of Evil” and says he’s “sabre rattling” out of one side, then says he’s not doing enough to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions out of the other side.

No, the way the horseass left has been reacting to everything Bush does/doesn’t do in world affairs, I couldn’t give a damn less what they think about what’s going on in the world right now.

By Buy Danish

October 25, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

When you interview Condi - When Ambassador Bremer was in charge of the Provisional Coalition Authority,I would like to know why we didn’t arrest Al Sadr who had been charged with the murder of a Sunni Cleric. Does the White House regret the decision to let him roam free with his Mahdi Army?

The other question that nags at me is why the State Department is still filled with Cold War era Leftists who actively work and conspire in opposition to Bush Administration foreign policy, and among other bad acts, leak secrets to their wives who just happen to be individuals like Dana Priest of the Washington Post - with apparent impunity.

By Pat Clark

October 25, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

The proposed Persian Gulf Resolution: An unprovoked attack on an American war ship in the Persian Gulf by Iranian forces has forced America to declare a state of war now exists between Iran and the United States of America. All out warfare has been underway since October 31, 2006, the date of the attack. ~Is this the planned press release by the neocons just prior to the November election?

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Chazman and Brian,

I’ll answer questions when you stop asking silly ones.

Trent Lott is out of politics because he resigned as Senate Republican Majority leader some time ago and does not plan to run again for office. In other words, he is “out” of political influence.

Trent Lott never did influence my politics one way or the other. Is Nancy Pelosi your guiding light in politics? Be sure you answer now.

Chazman, I said your father’s opinions were his own business. I don’t know why you are making such a big deal over your father’s politics. Don’t you have an opinion of your own?

Brian Curtis, your question is based on a false premise and does not deserve an answer. Our war in Iraq is not a done, lost deal and I support the troops there. If you want an answer to please your anti-war inclinations, ask a liberal. Don’t ask me. I am for the country at this time with no “if’s and buts” and insults about our leaders.

Why don’t you two take up knitting instead of wasting time here?

By getalife

October 25, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

BiNazi,

Those are not good little fascist softball questions.

You may be labeled an enemy combatant and end up in Gitmo being tortured.

Good for you.

By Chazman

October 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I’m Still waiting on your answer.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Jackass media panties in wad over Rush’s comments on Michael J. Fox’s ad for the Missouri RAT candidate. Let me get this straight: Rush is on three or four hours a day five days a week, 12 months a year. After all that on-air hot air, the only thing the media can nitpick out is his comment about Fox’s ad as a nice acting job.

Maybe Rush could have used different words, but he has a point: everything about the left is about using a group or cause to get votes. Anyone remember the last time they saw Fox on TV shaking like an old man with Parkinson’s? Me neither.

The RAT party used Fox for the LIE that the Republican incumbent in Missouri would “kill” people by cancelling stem cell research.

Now exactly how in the hell is that any different than the LIE the RAT party used in 2000 that “Black churches would burn” if Bush was elected, or the insinuation that Black people would be dragged behind pickup trucks if Bush was elected?

Now exactly how is that any different than saying old people would be left to die on the streets if Bush were elected?

How exactly is that any different than saying “children will go to bed hungry at night” if Bush were elected? (While they amazingly keep gaining wait every consecutive year)

Perhaps Rush went over the top in his comments, but I don’t think that’s any worse than the RAT party going over the top in their comments… and using a GROUP or CAUSE to project them all.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Told ya she is ignorant.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

@Akbar-

“The American Empire will be forever broken in the deserts of the Middle East, and in the sea’s off Iran. Allah Akbar!!”

Well may if you pathetic coward islamogoons would fight us man to man instead of hiding behind innocent women and children or blowing yourselves up, you’d have a point.

The problem is you barbaric 6th-Century animals aren’t fighting us. Therefore, you can’t claim any victory, coward.

By CJ

October 25, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You seem to be an expert on the dissention vs. sedition. If I may, I’d like to take advantage of your expertise and ask you a couple of hypothetical questions:

I wait patiently for you to enlighten me while continuing with my knitting.

By Realist

October 25, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

I think most of you better come up with new questions for Condi. About ten minutes ago the President answered most of your questions, and it came from the horses mouth so to speak.

If Bush pointing at his chest and saying that it all started with HIM, and he was accountable, then I dont know what else will. Getalife, there is your accountability, now stfu about it. He stood up to it like a man instead of trying to cower like demoncrat.

If Bush has done wrong, time and congressional hearings will tell all. In the mean time, the dems should put up a presidnetial candidate who will lead us better than Bush. Cant wait to see who it is, and I almost hope they win. I think Bush will be viewed in history as a strong, successful and forward thinking President in about twenty years from now. We are in uncharted terriroty here. You cant come in with principles and lessoned learned in WWII and Vietnam and apply them to todays war on terror. It wont work. Im eager to see the next guy (or gal) give the oval office a shot. Should be fun to watch.

By Akbar

October 25, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

I will fight you man to man anytime Markus, just give me your location.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

So Dusty… you actually CAN’T answer the question, can you?

Forget Iraq: Invent a totally fictional president and a totally fictional war. Assume THAT war is illegal, foolish, and doomed.

Now, answer (if you can)… what should Americans do about it? Cheer and support it blindly? Shut up and ignore the wasted lives and needless deaths?

Or do you think that no such situation could ever, ever occur, under ANY administration? Because if it can, you need to figure out whether it’s “patriotic” to pretend otherwise.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Realist: That’s funny, Bush seems more than eager to apply WW2 and Vietnam-era solutions to the problem of terrorism (i.e., fighting it like a ground war, with soldiers, as if there was a uniformed enemy to shoot at).

And we know THAT doesn’t work.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

“Stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp…”

Here comes the Gestapo Environazis! Last year when Katrina hit, they and their Eichmann lawyers planned on suing US companies for causing the hurricane (via global warming). NOw it appears they are going through with thier plans this year. Gee, I wonder what their excuse is this year since we didn’t have ONE FREAKING HURRICANE hit the shores? I wonder if they have factored in the international no-emmissions control stinkbomb nations like India and China? Nah, probably not.

Liberalism - emotionalizing the way to Utopia

By getalife

October 25, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

You are correct Realfake.

W did say he is accountable because he knows he is not on the ballot.

The gop are and people should use the absentee ballots for the paper trail and to hold them accountable.

The house will hold hearings to hold w and the rest accountable.

The world is waiting and I will not STFU until it happens.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

If liberals are so ‘emotional,’ why is it the Bush administration that hates & fears science so much?

Reality has a liberal bias.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Ask Rice: “Boxers or Briefs”?

Ask Rice: “Does W have a credibility GAP?”

Ask Rice: “Have you ever traced your roots, toots?”

Here’s a surprise for Jim Wooten: If Rice were to run for prez, I would vote for her. Not because I think she can do any better than Obama, but because it would advance justice in this great society of ours a thousand light years.

I want justice more than anything in this world for ALL AMERICANS.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

CJ

I am glad you have taken up knitting. PLease show Curtis and Chazman how to do it. And take your hypothetical copy-cat questions with you.

I am not running the $64,000 Question Program for you liberals looking for an excuse to bash the country and the government and call it support for the troops.

Because I support the war and the programs of this country with plain old out-spoken patriotism, shouldn’t upset you. But it does, doesn’t it? I am not politically correct in liberal ways.

If you have a guilty conscience about your attitude towards the country and the troops, don’t look to me to absolve it for you. Do it on your own. I’m not your mother. Thank goodness.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 25, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

I see the usual cast of chickenhawk cowards is here. Realisp, Markanus, tftt/tommy, Bi Danish - welcome once again to the Woo-ten Klan chickenhawk members of the Order of the Yellow Stripe.

What a bunch of worthless punks.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Dusty: I accept your surrender. You can’t answer the question; you can only insist that 1) there’s no such thing as a bad war, and 2) even if there was, it wouldn’t be “patriotic” to do anything to stop it.

You’re a good, obedient little neocon tool. (pats your head) Good girl! Save the thinking for the Big Important People; your job is just to obey and wave flags.

By DebbieDoRight

October 25, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

The other question that nags at me is why the State Department is still filled with Cold War era Leftists who actively work and conspire in opposition to Bush Administration foreign policy, and among other bad acts, leak secrets to their wives who just happen to be individuals like Dana Priest of the Washington Post - with apparent impunity.

Leaking secrets? Like when the Karl Rove and “Scooter” Libby outed Valerie Plame?

By time for the truth

October 25, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

@ Debbiedummy

I noted your now trademark pathetically dishonest question with suitably mildly amused sniggering. Clearly you completely and deliberately missed the point of my post. WISE UP MATEY!!

Obviously ALL conservatives naturally enough have a least a little bit of contempt for the far left and leftist racebaiters. Surely you are NOT denying that some lefties and blacks have been racially hateful towards Sec. Rice?

By DebbieDoRight

October 25, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

If Bush has done wrong, time and congressional hearings will tell all. In the mean time, the dems should put up a presidnetial candidate who will lead us better than Bush.

Mr. Ed, (the talking horse), could do a better job of leading us then Bush. Barney, the purple dinosaur can do a better job than bush. Big Bird can do a better job than bush. And last but not least, The Ilvya Von Stropper (a mythical character I just made up), could do a beter job of leading us than Bush.

By Chazman

October 25, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

I figured you would not answer the question. So anyone that does not plan to run for office again is no longer in politics? What a cheezy way of wiggling your way out of admitting you made a mistake, not to mention dodging the question. But actually, you are wrong Dusty.

This from the AP January 2006:

PASCAGOULA, Miss. - Sen. Trent Lott announced Tuesday he is running for a fourth term this year, a decision that ends months of speculation.

The 64-year-old Republican told a hometown crowd that he wants to continue working on federal issues related to Mississippi’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina. He lost his own beachside house to Katrina on Aug. 29.

The former Senate majority leader also has hinted that he might seek another leadership position in Washington. He lost his leadership position in December 2002 after saying at Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party that Mississippi had proudly voted for Thurmond when the South Carolinian ran for president as a segregationist in 1948.

The Democratic candidate in the general election in November will be Mississippi state representative Erik Fleming. Four Democrats participated in the June 6, 2006 primary. Fleming placed first but did not receive 50% of the vote. He and Bill Bowlin qualified for a runoff marked by low turnout on June 27, 2006, which Fleming won by 65-35%.

Doesn’t sound like somebody “out” of political influence.

And I didn’t suggest that Trent Lott or Tom Delay influences your politics. I just asked do you agree with the statement he made. You asked is Nancy Pelosi my guiding light. My answer is no. I support her because she is a democrat, but I do not agree with everything she says. Example: When the Foley deal unfolded a few weeks ago, she was shown on TV over and over stating the republicans covered this up for a long time. I cringed. Although I believe evidence will eventually prove this to be correct, I thought she should not be saying that because there is no proof of that. I thought it was a mistake for her to be saying it.

So you think my question is “silly”? You state anyone who disagrees with the president is not supporting the troops. Tom Delay says you can support the troops without supporting the president. Do you agree with him? Yes or No. I disagreed with Nancy Pelosi. Do you disagree with Tom Delay?

By DebbieDoRight

October 25, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Blog Dawg: At one time Ms. Rice was an avowed Democrat. Having watched the devastation that unequal justice and racism can conjure, (she was a friend of one of the 3 girls in Birmingham who got blown up), she worked dilligently and tirelessly for the Democratic Party.

Then she met Dubya, and fell in love. Afterwards, she became a RepublicTron for life!!!

By DebbieDoRight

October 25, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Clearly you completely and deliberately missed the point of my post.

There was a POINT to all that pontificating?

Surely you are NOT denying that some lefties and blacks have been racially hateful towards Sec. Rice?

How can black people be racially hateful towards Ms. Rice? We LOVE Ms. Rice!! Why she is just like us!!! I watch her show, or tape it, every day and talk about it on blogs to all my friends…….Oh wait, wait, wait….That’s Oprah.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Poor old Curtis,

So used to waving white flags he thinks my comments are some kind of surrender. Is he making a citizens arrest of a fellow American?

Poor baby! Will somebody tell him that we are fighting terrorists, NOT Americans? He hasn’t quite gotten the whole picture yet.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Will somebody tell him that we are fighting terrorists, NOT Americans?

Yes, tell that to W, Cheney and the gop.

By CJ

October 25, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Chazman’s and Curtis’ questions would be relevant if Dusty actually cared about our country, our government, or our troops as she claims. She doesn’t.

Her “stop bashing our country…support the troops” propaganda is a front to disguise her never-say-die support for those who promise the biggest tax cuts (Republicans). She’s not going to concede that Bush failed in Iraq, because she doesn’t care what happens in Iraq. Like the rest of these hypocrites, she only cares about her wallet — regardless of the cost to others including innocent Iraqis, our troops, our government, our security, our future and our morals.

By Chazman

October 25, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Still waiting on you to answer my question. And don’t try to weasal out of it by saying it’s “silly”. Do you agree with the statemnt of Tom Delay? Should I refresh your memory?

“You can support the troops without supporting the president.”

How about it Dusty. Yes or No?

By Van

October 25, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

CJ,

I may have to disagree.

Dusty has been able to separate the politican side and the support side. Support for the troops is a non-political item. Actually believing in something other than your mythical utopia is a strengh.

Some of us actually believe in this country and what it stands for, regardless of which party is calling “bohica”.

I wish you believed in this country also.

By JK

October 25, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Hey y’all… The President was talking today. What does “I’m accountable” mean? When Dennis Hastert said it recently, he also said he’d done nothing wrong, and he wouldn’t step down, and he took no punitive action upon himself, and to my knowledge, has done nothing to right any associated wrongs. So I’m still confused as to what it actually means when a Republican says that. Can you enlighten? THANKS!

By Theeny

October 25, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Why ask Secretary Rice anything at all? All you’ll get is the latest White House propaganda fluff. It’s nice that they FINALLY figured out that the American people just aren’t buying the “stay the course” mantra. Heck, there’s a lot more we aren’t buying, but the administration just hasn’t capitulated…yet.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Just ask Condi about Iraq.

By Bella

October 25, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Condi Rice isn’t SMART; she’s EDUCATED. There IS a difference.

By jbmlaw

October 25, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Sorry I have missed everything today, too busy. Just noticed this letter from the ground in Iraq, published today at Taranto’s Best of the Web, relevant to today’s topic:

Our item yesterday in which we reaffirmed our support for the liberation of Iraq brought some very interesting reader comments. This is from an American there who asks not to be named:

There’s been a lot of discussion back home about the course of the war, the righteousness of our involvement, the clarity of our execution, and what to do about the predicament in which we currently find ourselves. I just wanted to send you my firsthand account of what’s happening here.

First, a little bit about me: I’m stationed slightly northwest of Baghdad in a mixed Sunni/Shia area. I’m a sergeant in the U.S. Army on a human intelligence collection team. I interact with Iraqis on a daily basis and I help put together the intel picture for our area of operations. I have contacts with friends, who are also in my job, in every are of operations in the Fourth Infantry Division footprint, and through our crosstalk I’d say I have a pretty damn good idea of what’s going on in and around Baghdad on a micro and intermediary level.

I wrote heavily in favor of this war before I enlisted myself, and I still maintain that going into Iraq was not only the necessary thing to do, but the right thing to do as well.

There have been distinct failures of policy in Iraq. The vast majority of them fall under the category “failure to adapt.” Basically U.S. policies have been several steps behind the changing conditions ever since we came into the country. I believe this is (in part) due to our plainly obvious desire to extricate ourselves from Iraq. I know President Bush is preaching “stay the course,” but we came over here with a goal of handing over our battlespace to the Iraqis by the end of our tour here.

This breakneck pace with which we’re trying to push the responsibility for governing and securing Iraq is irresponsible and suicidal. It’s like throwing a brick on a house of cards and hoping it holds up. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)—a joint term referring to Iraqi army and Iraqi police—are so rife with corruption, insurgent sympathies and Shia militia members that they have zero effectiveness. Two Iraqi police brigades in Baghdad have been disbanded recently, and the general sentiment in our field is “Why stop there?” I can’t tell you how many roadside bombs have been detonated against American forces within sight of ISF checkpoints. Faith in the Iraqi army is only slightly more justified than faith in the police—but even there, the problems of tribal loyalties, desertion, insufficient training, low morale and a failure to properly indoctrinate their soldiers results in a substandard, ineffective military. A lot of the problems are directly related to Arab culture, which traditionally doesn’t see nepotism and graft as serious sins. Changing that is going to require a lot more than “benchmarks.”

In Shia areas, the militias hold the real control of the city. They have infiltrated, co-opted or intimidated into submission the local police. They are expanding their territories, restricting freedom of movement for Sunnis, forcing mass migrations, spiking ethnic tensions, not to mention the murderous checkpoints, all while U.S. forces do … nothing.

For the first six months I was in country, sectarian violence was classified as an “Iraqi on Iraqi” crime. Division didn’t want to hear about it. And, in a sense I can understand why. Because division realized that which the Iraqi people have come to realize: The American forces cannot protect them. We are too few in number and our mission is “stability and support.” The problem is that there’s nothing to give stability and support to. We hollowed out the Baathist regime, and we hastily set up this provisional government, thrusting political responsibility on a host of unknowns, each with his own political agenda, most funded by Iran, and we’re seeing the results.

In Germany after World War II, we controlled our sector with approximately 500,000 troops, directly administering the area for 10 years while we rebuilt the country and rebuilt the social and political infrastructure needed to run it. In Iraq, we’ve got one-third that number of troops dealing with three times the population on a much faster timetable, and we’re attempting to unify three distinct ethnic groups with no national interest and at least three outside influences (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists, Iranian mullahs and Syrian Baathists) each eagerly funding various groups in an attempt to see us fail. And we are.

If we continue on as is in Iraq, we will leave here (sooner or later) with a fractured state, a Rwanda-waiting-to-happen. “Stay the course” and refusing to admit that we’re screwing things up is already killing a lot of people needlessly. Following through with such inane nonstrategy is going to be the death knell for hundreds of thousands of Sunnis.

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.

If these three things are done, you can actually start the Iraqi economy again. Once people have a sense of security, they’ll be able to leave their houses to go to work. Tell your American commanders that it’s OK to pass up bad news—because part of the problem is that these issues are not reaching above the battalion or brigade level due to the can-do, make-it-happen culture indoctrinated into our U.S. officers. While the attitude is admirable, it also creates barriers to recognizing and dealing with on-the-ground realities.

James, there’s a lot more to this than I’ve written here. The short of it is, the situation is salvageable, but not with “stay the course” and certainly not with cut and run. However, the commitment required to save it is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow. I just don’t see the current administration with the political capital remaining in order to properly motivate and convince the American public (or the West in general) of the necessity of these actions.

At the same time, failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession.

By Th

October 25, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

I believe that it is my patriotic duty to do everything I can to get us out of Iraq and working to improve relations with the rest of the world in order to make the world a safer place and us safer. The longer this insanity goes on, the longer it will take to recover and the worse it will be for my children. Anyone who supports this misadventure supports the damaging of our country whether you mean to or not.

Retired General William Odum who headed the NSA for Reagan and now works at the Hudson Institute called the Iraq invasion the, “greatest strategic disaster in US history.” If you think you know more than Odum, believe what you will.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lashed out at the United States Wednesday, saying his popularly elected government would not bend to U.S.-imposed benchmarks and timelines and criticizing a U.S. and Iraqi military operation in a Shiite slum of Baghdad that left at least five people dead and 20 wounded

Ask Condi why Marlarki disrespects our country.

By getalife

October 25, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Ask Condi about the “greatest strategic disaster in US history.”

Iraq.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Brian, W doesn’t hate or fear science. He has to try to hold on to what’s left of the evangelical right constituency, and those people think the devil wears labcoats.

By CJ

October 25, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Van @01:59 PM “Actually believing in something other than your mythical utopia is a strengh.”

Not if the something you believe in is just your wallet.

“Dusty has been able to separate the politican side and the support side. Support for the troops is a non-political item.”

Support for our troops should be non-political, but it’s not - as evidenced by the fact that Dusty and company accuse those who see through the Bush/Limbaugh/FOX propaganda of not supporting our troops.

“I wish you believed in this country also.”

You mean you wish I believed in the Republican Party also. Contrary to your assertion, not believing in Republicans is not the same as not believing in our country.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Ask Rice, “Boxers or Briefs?”

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

GENERAL ODUM is awfully late to the party.

We all knew this was wrong by the “Mission Accomplished” speech.

We’ve conured up the ancient lions of islams that were fast asleep.

To win now, we are going to have to slaughter the people we just put in power, or anyone else that makes a play for that oil.

If you didn’t think it was about oil, and still dont, then you need to have your head examined and take a hard look at your goals and your very existence, because you, sir, are a peter pan living in neverland.

It’s been OIL since the 20’s when Winston Churchill made it about oil by changing his navy from coal to oil.

FACT.

By Th

October 25, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

JBM; thanks for the article. I could support a real effort to secure Iraq and provide the opportunity for the Iraqis to rebuild their country, but I don’t see anyone really proposing this. If we are not prepared to put forth full effort, then we need to leave. When Bush calls for a tax hike and draft, I will believe he is serious.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

CJ, why are you replying to the and dusty ? Just make your sound, reasoned comments about your insights into the geo-political situation and let those poor debaters be. They are non compos mentis anyway. They are succeeding in making you stray off topic. Why would you correct their irrelevant taunts about you? You’re letting them turn this into a myspace chat room. Honestly.

Also, dont click on anyone’s links. Some of the bloggers get money for every sucker who clicks on their links. They are using this blog for their commercial enterprise, and that is wrong. Also, I’ve gotten a virus that ate my pixels on my flatscreen by clicking on links. Dont do it.

You guys.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

There is NO military solution for Iraq. No amount of US troop commitment will stop the civil war from running it’s course. When the sunni and shia fight to a stalemate, then they will negotiate a peace.

We need to pull out of baghdad, and let them hang the government just elected, and fight it out to the death, and wait for them to exhaust all the possibilities and then be there to clean it all up when they’re ready for peace.

We need to deploy along the Iranian border and the Syrian border to prevent any incursions by either country, but we need to stay out of the war.

Civil War is a natural and necessary step in the evolution of any country. Proof? How about every page of history ever written.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Van,

Thanks for the understanding words. It does get a bit sad to be raked over the coals for loving your own country.

But I don’t think the liberals on this blog are representive of our citizenry. Most Americans love this country. I don’t think that has changed no matter how this blog looks.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Has anyone noticed how the spin about Iraq from W is light on it’s feet, and not entrenched? He’s throwing a lot of spin out there about Iraq so that he can move in either direction and still have the story make sense, sort of.

Expect W to do everything that Kerry campaigned on in 2004 including the “global stamp of approval”.

Cheney should be in prison for his role as the face of the military industrial complex that got us into this mess. It’s was Cheney’s baby all the way, even down the the tactical events in the opening phase which served to doom Iraq’s invasion. Cheney’s million tank march to baghdad..

By CJ

October 25, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw @2:44 “We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re backtracking…Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.”

I second Th’s 3:35 post. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that the author in jbm’s post is probably correct when he writes: “the commitment required to save [Iraq] is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow.” The Dustys and Vans of the world will scream bloody murder if their tax cuts are rolled back. Furthermore, I suspect that most of the country is unlikely to accept a draft.

I wonder what Secretary Rice would have to say about the recommendations made in jbmlaw’s post and what it would take to get from here to there…hmmm.

Kudos jmb.

By Violins for Dusty

October 25, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

It does get a bit sad to be raked over the coals for loving your own country.

Your story has touched my heart. The tears are about to begin. It just so happens I have in my pocket: a miniature violin! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Dusty you are not a serious person. You cant spin a victory out of Iraq. If W cant, then you cant.

By Whaaaaa!

October 25, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

It is a damn shame people like Dusty and Van do not see what their party has done to their country.

By Van

October 25, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Thats because we are talking about too many things - it confuses them

Love of country Support of the President Support of the troops patriotism nationalism

To many things for them to process. For them it is all or nothing.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Blog Dawg is absolutely correct. Reply only to relevant comments. Therefore I will skip over any comments made by Blog Dawg.

OK and skip all of CJ’s as totally irrelevant and purely ficticious.

To relieve Chazman’s constant discomfort from an unrelieved mind, and he has decided whose quote he is furnishing, let me see…Ahh…Tom DeLay this time…hmmm…”Can you support the troops and not support the president?”

Why sure, I guess it is possible. You liberals can say anything you wish. How about “Osama is a better man than Bush* but I support the troops.”*

Or maybe “Saddam was a better president than Bush but*I support the troops.”

Or even “Fidel is batter than Bush but I support the troops.”

You have freedom of speech but that doesn’t make anybody believe what you say. But keep on chattering “The sky is falling!” The rest of us will keep on supporting the country, the president and the troops.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Ask Rice what she thinks of the Dixie Chicks.

“Support the Troops” has meant only “dont buy the dixie chick’s recordings” for the red state dittoheadwounds.

The only thing Bush and Cheney has accomplished in the last six years was slower Dixie Chick sales.

W spun the CIA intel about Iraq into this: “The Dixie Chicks, Saddam, and OBL had links to 911”.

If I had known that the Dixie chicks and Saddam were involved together with Al Queda and 911, then I would have voted for the war in Iraq TOO!!!!

AMericans get what they deserve. Stupidity is it’s own reward.

By Hey

October 25, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

The troops are an extension of the president, they are occupying someone else’s country on behalf of the president. You cannot support one with out the other. I oppose the occupation of Iraq, I defy the neo-con scum, and I do not support the troops.

By CJ

October 25, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the considered advice Blog Dawg. However, I think the bullying tactics that Van and Dusty parrot require responses from time to time.

Many on the right have created enormous wealth for themselves, influence in the political lexicon and clout in Washington because of the effectiveness of such rhetorical tactics. Gingrich, the father of political hate-speak, is a regular advisor to the Pentagon and the White House. Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, O’Reilly, Coulter and others are rich and influential as well, not because of their knowledge and analytical skills, but because of their rhetoric.

Such tactics become part of the political lexicon because they work. They work because they go unanswered. So, in my little corner, I try to do my part.

And I see that Dusty is smarting @3:54 because she was criticized for “loving her own country” by liberals on this blog who don’t. Nice.

By Aquaman

October 25, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I see others picked up where I left off and yet you still refuse to face the fact that your position defies logic.

You asserted that you answered my question the other day, despite having ignored it consistently.

To refresh…When we had troops under fire in Kosovo many, including the current President and his spokesman spoke out against President Clinton and questioned the wisdom of the mission and why there was no clear exit strategy. These are the same questions being asked of President Bush.

The question again is: Were the ones questioning President Clinton acting in an un-American manner and undermining our troops under fire in Kosovo.

If they were then say so and your position will be consistent. If not then why was it OK then for the GOP to ask those questions then and suddenly NOT OK when it is the opposition.

A simple question, ask directly of you, that has gone unanswered for almost 4 days.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

ask rice if it’s proper that progress in the war on terror is measured in terms of Dixie Chicks Concert ticket sales.

Cartoon Idea: Show “Stay the Course” being changed to “Slay the Tours”, (the dixie chick tours).

Then show an Osama bin laden connection with Whitney Houston ticket sales vs dixie chicks ticket sales.

By Van

October 25, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Hey,

Glad there isn’t a draft right now, would want to be on patrol with you.

By Dusty

October 25, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

No,

I am not smarting. Mostly bored with repetitious questions.

Would Aquaman’s keeper please come get him? He’s loose again and nobody will claim him.

As Scarlet said, “Tomorrow is another day.” The DixieChickens will be up bright and early and Aquaman will be swimming in with his tadpole suit shining.

Oh for the days of yore when having good sense was considered an asset. And patriotism was considered the norm. Here’s to a better day tomorrow.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis @ 12:41-

“If liberals are so ‘emotional,’ why is it the Bush administration that hates & fears science so much?”

Where is it written in the US Constitution that the GOVERNMENT should fund science and not private enterprise? You liberals love talking about how we Cons hate the Constitution so much, so anti-up sport. Show me where you love the part in the Constitution where government research funding for stem cell research funding is protected (clue: it’s not next to that part where everyone has a right to “Free” healthcare).

All of that aside, there has never EVER been any DECREASE in federal funding for stem cell research. Another liberal LIE during an election season.

By Thanks Rush!

October 25, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

“I don’t know where Limbaugh got the idea that telling scurrilous lies about one of America’s favorite celebrities and someone who enjoys a huge amount of public sympathy to boot was a shrewd political move. But the Dems should be damned glad he did. Rush may have just booted away Missouri’s Republican Senate seat.”

By Markus

October 25, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Well no wonder those stupid muslim immigrant punks in France can’t get jobs… they act too much like America’s punks: sitting around listening to rap music and whining about no job hiring. Hey, learn a SKILL you losers.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Hey Thanks Rush!-

If you think Rush’s comments (which were TOTALLY taken out of context as usual from the communist liberal media) will sail you people over the top, I’d suggest you look at how many Missourians support increasing funding for stem cell research. I’d also suggest you look at how the gap has narrowed to near DEAD HEAT in the entire nation of RAT vs. Republicans when just a WEEK ago you RATs and your media whores were drooling and measuring drapes. But go on thinking… you jackasses on the left do that best.

By Van

October 25, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Blog Dawg,

And this from a party that has won the endorsement of 9 out of 10 terrorists. Go Democrats.

Hmm, I don’t think I vote next month with the terrorists - thanks, but no thanks.

By See ya Rick!

October 25, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum’s embattled re-election campaign has pulled most of its television ads off the major broadcast networks, a move that makes some experts wonder if the GOP incumbent is low on cash.

By hey

October 25, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

You would not make it to a fox hole van, my bayonette in your back is a sure thing. Frag em, frag em, frag em all.

By Cut and run eh?

October 25, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Cincinnati, one of the most right-wing cities in the country, also has two conservative newspapers and one of them has endorsed Victoria Wulsin for Congress over the controversial Jean Schmidt.

See ya Schmidt!

By CJ

October 25, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Markus,

I worry about you. You seem to be held together by Elmer’s glue and double-stick tape.

Anyway, can you point me to your source on the DEAT HEAT stats? I’m curious to see them.

By Steal Social Security

October 25, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

More than a year after Social Security reform faded from the political radar screen, the debate erupted anew, as Democrats seized on news that President Bush hopes to revive an unpopular proposal to make changes in the national retirement program.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Rick never had a chance in PA. Next…

By Thank you Generals!

October 25, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

IRAQ GENERALS SAY THEY ARE VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS…

By Markus

October 25, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

CJ-

It’s called “polls.” Look them up. Here’s a clue:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

By Markus

October 25, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Oops, check that, a little clarity here-

Races have tightned to near dead heat in states where the ENTIRE NATION is watching closely… like IA, MO, and VA.

By Markus

October 25, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

And when looking at that site, hit the “Key Races” tab.

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Yep, Dusty has been pinned in a corner and won’t admit it. I expect she’ll pretend this exchange never happened so she can continuing hysterically insisting that “All U.S. wars are just wars! Supporting the president is supporting the troops!”

And similar, irrational nonsense. But your central flaw has been exposed, Dusty; it won’t work. The right-wing parrots have been chanting “anti-American, you hate the troops” since we started patriotically questioning what our employees (the Administration) are up to. And it’s Not Working.

So sorry, Dusty, you don’t get to play the “patriotism” card any more. A person who stands up to their government when it’s doing wrong is FAR more patriotic than an obedient little sheep like you. And the “how dare you question our troops’ sacrifice!” smokescreen has blown away.

So sad, now you’ll have to actually think for a change.

By Blog Dawg

October 26, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Cheney is on the Today show and he just said “The Dixie Chick’s career is in it’s last throes”.

Concerning Iraqi slogans, Bush has changed the nautical, “Stay the Course” to “Walk the Plank”, or better, “Women and Children First”!

Next, W’s going to poll, “Keelhaul Al Queda”, and “Tie that Shia to the yardarm”.

Also, “I have not yet begun to fight” was a nautical slogan. Bush wants patience about the Iraq war. We had already defeated Germany and had only to nuke Japan by this amount of time in WW2.

Also, we had only to run down a few remaining naked women by this time in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1822. Hell, we had only to behead a few diehards by this time in the 100 years war. So how much patience does W think we’ve got?

Bush says that his patience about Iraq taking over the security is not unlimited. Well neither is the American People’s patience with his corrupt policy of incompetent neglect of sound strategery.

By Markus

October 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

To the mindless minion liberals who love to say, “we are nearing the time we spent in WWII” with regards to Iraq, I have some observations for you tin hats that you either forgot about or conveniently ignore:

1) In WWII we (and the allied coalition) had easily defined enemies who wore enemy uniforms, flew enemy fighters, drove enemy tanks, and commanded enemy ships. Nobody hid behind women and children or pretended to be civilians or even police officers to get close to kill unsuspecting allied troops.

2) In WWII we had several large scale quick and pointed deadly invasions that killed thousands of Americans in one single day.

3) In WWII we did not overly concern ourselves with the collateral damage of civilians, especially after Doolittle’s Tokyo raid and bombing Germany’s ball bearing plants. We had to destroy the enemy. Period.

4) In WWII we had all of Hollywood and other entertainers following Bob Hope around the world to pump up troop morale instead of cowardly going overseas and saying “I’m ashamed to be from [insert state here].”

5) In WWII when Democrits were in charge, we didn’t have a venomous media, venomous congressional Republicans, and idiotic Hollywood entertainers doing everything within their power to undermine the president all because they hated him, and to hell with how the nation suffered accordingly.

6) In WWII we weren’t a bunch of politically correct limp noodles more worried what the “world” thought than getting the freaking JOB DONE.

7) In WWII we didn’t have Hollywood actors meeting with Hitler and Hirohito and publicly saying how great their nations are and how they are no threat to the Western free world.

8) In WWII we didn’t have anti-war extremist sicko liberal teachers in public schools indoctrinating children into the “lies” that we allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so we could be excused to attack Japan.

9) In WWII we didn’t have a large group (keyword LARGE here for you nitpicking liberals.. sure there was some pacifist dissent back then) of people who were ashamed of America being a superpower and who protested publicly about it, rendering comfort and increasing the will of the enemy.

10) Finally, in WWII we didn’t have candyassed liberals complaining about the “military industrial complex” and making “evil profits” for a “war machine.” We had Rosie The Riveter and John Q. Public war bond investor.

Nah, I see BIG differences as to why we are where we are in Iraq vs. in two different theatres in WWII. I’m off to Florida now for some well-deserved time off. I just thank God I’m not a whiney@ssed jealous liberal democrit backyard laundry lifter. It’s good to be me.

By Horace

October 26, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Ask Ms Rice this: Is the American Era in the Middle East over, and if so, what will this mean to America?