Thinking Right

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

The date for failure in Iraq is today and every day. A withdrawal date is something different. It puts and end to the failure, at least for the Americans.

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

The Wpresident DOES have two legacies, but you mistyped.. They are LIES and CORRUPTION.

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

The president is our employee serving at our pleasure. He is working on a gargantuan project with no deadline. He can at least give us some benchmarks.

If Harold were in charge, he would have been Wfired for lack of progress (if nothing else) quite a while ago.

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

One could even say W and Failure aren’t setting a date.. They are married! What must Laura think? And we though Mitt Romney was the only Mormon in Washington.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 11, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim,

You’re right on target. The Democrats are clearly to blame here.

Yep. No dobut about it. The Democrats have really messed up this time.

Too bad GW and Dick can’t run this country in private like it ought to be run. That way, they could just do things and get them done. Do-bees. That’s what GW and Dick are.

Who cares about democracy.

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Welcome to Thinking Right With Harold.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

Harold Does a withdrawal date put an end to failure or does it create it?

Why not tell the enemy that we will stick the course untill Iraq is stable. Meanwhile attack those countries who support the terrorist with terror of our own. It would be difficult to cause problems in Iraq while your trying to guard against turmoil in your own country.

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

As Harold stated, a withdrawal date puts and end to failure for the Americans.

The Iraqis are stuck with our failure for a very long time no matter what we do.

They have been stuck with the failure of the West since 1942 and will be stuck with our failure until Iraq becomes parts of Iran and Turkey.

Iran will be the only winner here. George W is Iran’s best friend.

By For the Record

July 11, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten:

Please give Bush/Cheney their due on legacy. Historians will long remember the administration’s fondness for torture and extraordinary rendition, their failure to respect the civil liberties of American citizens, their usurption of legistlative perogatives, the corruption and devastation of the Justice Department by their political incompetents, their turning back the clock vis. minority voting rights, the increase in American poverty under their auspices, the failure to provide health care for American children, their war on science and public health, and the near total destruction of America’s image around the world.

Somewhere, the ghost of Franklin Pierce is smiling …

By jbmlaw

July 11, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I don’t know why Jim has a problem with the Congressional Democrats’ campaign to implement a massive bloodbath in the Middle East. Sure millions of innocents will die needlessly, but the leftist mantra has always been that mass murder is an appropriate way to control the population. Thus the surrender in Vietnam, and the current five-year domestic campaign of aid and comfort for the terrorists roaming the Middle East. (Have you ever heard a progressive condemn the suicide bombers with the same vitriol normally reserved for Abu Graib?) The last thing Democrats would want is policy designed to ensure victory over the killers, as that would obviate a need for larger government.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. Do any of our resident progressives wish to win the war in Iraq? (Exclude AmVet and Southern Democrat – your bona fides are good.) If so, how would you go about winning?

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

RCH, what you and Dubai seem not to realize is that Iraq IS the enemy.

By Curious Observer

July 11, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Maybe Senators Snowe and Smith hear the roar of an approaching election. Ditto for other Republican senators who’ve suddenly discovered that they have the backbone to oppose this war.

It’s called a representative democracy, Wooten. If 70 percent of this country is opposed to this war, sooner or later the electorate is going to turn the war’s supporters out of office. GW can’t run for reelection, and Cheney won’t run for the presidency, thanks be to God.

You neocons may view the world from a high horse, but there’s an angry constituency out there ready to turn you out of office, restore fiscal sanity to the country, withdraw our troops from Iraq, restore integrity to the Supreme Court, and impose a fair system of taxation, not to mention the development of humane health care coverage for all citizens.

You’re really going to hate ‘08, but until then, you can feel free to feign high moral principles and superior intellect. After all, what do the mere people know?

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

But anyway, no matter what happens, Dubai will keep on with his plan:

Stay The Course until you can Blame The Democrats

By harold

July 11, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

harold is not forced to surrender a third of his income to suicide bombers

the bombers harold pays for have fancy airplanes and can do their dirty work remotely

By RCH

July 11, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Harold 92% of Iraq’s support our involvement up to a point. Lets give them a square playing field and then leave them as friends.Or as my friend jbmlaw has pointed out do you want another bloodbath as in Vietnam and Cambodia?

By GodHatesTrash

July 11, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

The Iraqis ran in 2002.

Our glorious generals drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad, and took victory laps around the statue of Saddam before they tore it down.

Al Qaeda had us right where they wanted us, the gawdamn fool Dumbya placed our soldiers in harm’s way without a plan or a clue. Then the real war started, the kind of war that our army has proven time and time again that it cannot win. Asymmetrical warfare - a patient enemy that picks its own battlefields, its own timing, its own weaponry, a war of attrition.

Like Vietnam, we will win every battle. Like Vietnam, the fact that we are stupid enough to fight that kind of war the way we are fighting it means we will lose.

Woo-ten Klan rednecks, you consider yourselves people of honor… how honorable is it to kill innocent civilians by the truckload and then look stupid and incompetent while you do it?

If we withdraw, hundreds of thousands may die. If we stay hundreds of thousands may die. You morons are clueless, you don’t know.

But If we leave, it won’t be Americans dying, or killing civilians. And we won’t look like stupid stumpbroke vengeful trash.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

RCH: Dubya’s Failure was prevalent the day we invaded a soveriegn nation who didn’t attack us. That Failure has created a massive backlash in predominantly Muslim nations and a massive backlash from then moderate Muslims who have now turned militant.

Dubya’s Failure has now changed America’s legacy from one of a powerful semi-peaceful country run by strong, determined intelligent men; to a country that is seen through the eyes of the world as a bully, ran by a dictatorial, oppressive chimpanzee and his flying monkeys.

Dubya’s Failure will be a blight not only on our own American History but the World’s History for centuries to come.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

Jim: Seek help!! Your dementia is getting worse and worse every day. Pretty soon, you’re going to start blaming Democrats for Scooter Libby, Abramahoff, WMD’s, “Mission Accomplished”, and Hurrican Katrina (Brownie’s doing a great job!), too.

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich have publicly announed their desires to leaves Iraq. Senators Smith, Sunnu, Coleman, Collins, Snow, Warner, Haegal, Alexander, Lott and McConnell have implied their desire to have our troops out of that shooting gallery. The National Security advisor for Ronald Reagan indicates that the US should leave Iraq today and if resisted by Dubya, impeach him and Cheyney. Is this a cut-and-run tactic being employed by the Dems? Recruitment for the Army is down by 20% in the last two months and a large majority of retired military generals has indicated that Army is nearly broken with the National Guard broken. The estimated time to put this component of our military back in place will take 10 years. The number of soldiers wounded have been more than 25,000 with a majority of them amputees. The surge began six months ago and has not had an impact on the increased violence; it has only served to get more of our people killed. We are spending more than $12 billion per month on Iraq/Afghanistan with the $60 billion allocated in January almost used. Borrow money from China to spend on a war for Oil. When will the Repubs stand up and impeach this criminal administration?

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Stay The Course until you can Blame The Democrats

Harold: Debbie’s feeling ya!!

By Redneck Convert

July 11, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m just flabbergasted that so many people don’t like this war in Iraq. Against the people that come over here and kilt 3,000 of our people. Everybody knows they was sent by this Saddam guy but nobody admits it. They pertend Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, they are flat out wrong.

So what if the CIA and My President got it wrong about Iraq getting the big weapons? Everybody makes mistakes now and then. We can’t get out now anyway. We are sort of on the tigers back and if we get off he will eat us. So I guess we need to stay 100 yrs. or so. Besides, Clinton made mistakes and that gives My President the right to make them. At least My President ain’t dropping his drawers in the oval office with some intern. Sure, its a pity so many solders are getting kilt or banged up, but at least we got high moral standards. Which would you rather see, a few thousand troops getting kilt or a president having sex in the oval office? Besides, I don’t know any of the troops.

I was awful glad to see Captain Freedom back on this blog yesterday. He sure knows how to give the libruls the what-for. Sometimes he uses words that are too big, but I think I follow his drift. He’s with us on killing the towel heads and saving us from the libruls.

I hope poor TFTT is in the hospitle right now getting the treatment he needs. Poor guy. Its hard enough to make it in this world even with a sane mind. It must be awful to go through it being a little touched in the head.

And I hope this Pope Rednecks gets banned here. He’s a desgrace to us real rednecks. I wish he would find a job over in England and just stay there. It would be a lot of justice. They send us TFTT, so we send them our crazy in return.

By getalife

July 11, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

The Iraqi government met no benchmarks set. Instead of a two month vacation, they are taking August off.

Since w is a coward and will not admit it is a failed occupation, the Dems will try again to force a withdrawal.

More wasted American lives and billions of our money wasted until w decides to withdraw before the election to try to save the gop.

By Dennis

July 11, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

In his column today, Mr. Wooten attempts to use the Democrats as an excuse for the failures of George W. Bush, “Democrats are determined to use this Congress as a two-year pre-election campaign.”

One can wonder why he doesn’t have Tony Snow’s job.

Of such irresponsibility and skewing the truth is Mr. Wooten’s claim to journalism; never mind the facts, it’s the lies that count.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By harold

July 11, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

The big problem is that Iraq was lost the day we invaded. Withdrawing or staying longer doesn’t change that, it just kills more Americans.

A withdrawal date is not a failure date, it’s a date to admit the existing failure.

Denying our failure does not mean we have not failed miserably.

By sct

July 11, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

What I love is the denial…. “President George W. Bush, whose poll numbers are in danger of dropping to the levels of Congress,….”

This is looking at a glass as being half full when in fact the glass is empty.

If that is what Republicans are counting on in ‘08 they are in trouble.

How many Dems running for re-election are running away from bad Congressional polls? Maybe its not the Dems in Congress the public is against. It seems the Congressional Republicans are the ones fearing for their re-elections. Why? Go ahead, roll them dice.

Speaking of polls, how about them weak willed Republicans Isakson and Chambliss on immigration. Wow. Classic examples. Hope Chambliss saved his re-election.

Oh and how about weak knee Republicans like La’s Vitter? Another classic.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Debbiedoright Do we have to wait to be invaded before we attack? Did we not make that same mistake before WWII? Lets wipe out the enemy before he gets that chance.

If 92% of the Iraq people support us, why should we be concerned with what other Muslim countries belief. It seems that only the militant voice is heard anyway.Moderate muslims are to frightened to stand up against the few extremist. If you watched the PBS special on FOX you will know what I mean.And if you belief that when we leave Iraq the violence against us will stop, I have some ocean front property in Alpharetta to sell you. The extremist Muslims have made it well known what their mission is. Total Shea law in all the world. That includes where you live!

By harold

July 11, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

RCH, it’s 92% of the Iraqi people IN MICHIGAN who say they support the war, but they only say that because they are scared they will get sent to Guantanamo Bay Cuba if they express disapproavil

and who in the heck thinks leaving iraq will end violence against the US? nobody belives that. staying wont end it either, though. iraq has nothing to do with that.

americans will stop getting killed in iraq on a daily basis once we leave. that’s it. if we arent there, they cant kill us there. huh.

By RCH

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

Harold Your right. If we leave Iraq we won’t get killed there. We will just get killed somewhere else. You yourself said so. Lets train the Ira1q military and security forces to take care of themselves and at the same time strike hard against our enemies.

It has been more than 60 years since WWII. Do we still not have bases in Germany and Japan. Do you not know that violence continued long after that war was won?

The terrorist has learned their lessons well from Vietnam. Can we win? Yes. Will we win,that remains to be seen.

By TW

July 11, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

His legacy will be only that he put a woman in the White House.

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of the Iraq war today…that must have hurt.

By We have a WINNER!

July 11, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Today’s big fat ugly lie of the day is brought to you by jbmlaw, the lawyer to call when you don’t care whether you live, die, or spend the next 80 years in prison for a speeding ticket:

”..the leftist mantra has always been that mass murder is an appropriate way to control the population.”

jbmlaw wins a free lunch at Rightie’s Choke On This Pig Bar-be-Que in Greater Smyrna, even though he says there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The sponsors suggest you order the Salmonella Chicken Salad Croissant. It’s YUMMY!

If you have a bigger, uglier, nastier, more divisive LIE to spew upon your fellow Americans in an effort to shield those responsible from accountability, please wait until tomorrow to submit it. Congratulations, jbmlaw!

By WTF

July 11, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw - I think the reason you don’t hear progressives speaking out about suicide bombers as much as they have about Abu Graib is because the progressives you’re referring to are Americans and therefore are exercising their responsiblity to speak out against actions perpetrated by Americans. They can’t control what suicide bombers are doing in the Middle East, but as citizens of a democracy here in the United States they can use their freedom to speak out against inappropriate activity when it is perpetrated by their own government. And by the way, are conservatives speaking out forcefully about suicide bombers, because if they are I’ve missed it. Having said that, I just have to add that your comment implying that “leftists” support mass murder is an incredibly ridiculous statement that only serves to lessen my respect for your viewpoint — a viewpoint I often disagree with but appreciate for its thoughtfulness and lucidity.

By Dusty

July 11, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

That’s right, Jim Wooten. Stand up and do what is right,just like the President. Americans need to stand up and say this country is worth fighting for.

There is nothing more disgraceful than this bunch of crybabies, cowards, retreaters, “thoughtful good-for-the- country traitors” and the phony “cute as a button” deceiver liberals.

They all think they are on a march. They are. Straight towards the biggest retreat since Viet Nam with it’s bloody legacy in history.

They want to hold up this suggested retreat as some sort of victory by poll. (EVERYBODY wants it so run and make the country, the troops and all Americans look like timid twits ready to be herded and slaughtered.)

All Americans have NOT been polled. Unless most Americans have changed 100%, they still cherish freedom and will fight for it against terrorists who would take it away.

The biggest step toward overtaking the USA is going on right now in Iraq. The biggest push for RETREAT is going on in a Congress led by tearful Democrats.

Americans need to be more vocal in their support of our fighting and dying troops. Dying for THIS country. Those who are too timid to stand up for their country, please take your box of Kleenex and GET OUT OF THE WAY!

By We have a WINNER!

July 11, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Dusty, can’t you READ? jbmlaw is today’s winner. You can try again tomorrow, but you should get some better material. Your lies aren’t even good.

By harold

July 11, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

the way to win iraq is to leave it be so it can turn into an “evil” state again and be attacked and invaded right.

we are in a fight against a “friend” and that never works. see jerry springer for all the evidence you want.

leave iraq and they wont attack us, they will kill each other. that is what dubai wants, but he wants to pin in on the democrats so we are still there taking US fatalities daily so he can blame the democrats

By WTF

July 11, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

While I’m personally conflicted on the idea of a withdrawal date, I think that anyone such as Mr. Wooten who is attacking Democrats for their opposition to the President’s policies (as well as those Americans who support the Dems position) has to recognize that the President muddied the waters on this issue when he was deceptive in leading the nation to war (not to absolve those Members of Congress who voted in favor without actually reading the reports, etc). If the President is serious about finding a solution to this war that doesn’t leave the US with egg on its face, then perhaps he needs to go before the people and acknowledge that so far there have been many aspects of this war and the period leading up to it that could have and should have been handled differently, and then commit himself to conducting the war in an open and honest manner. I don’t think this will ever happen, but Americans are a forgiving people who I think genuinely want success in Iraq — both for the US and for the Iraqis — but the President has to drop the bravado and become a statesman instead of a politican hack for that to happen.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 9:30: First we are NOT AT WAR. Congress is the only entity that can declare war and they haven’t done it yet, (The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war).

Iraq is a military blunder of monumental proportions. We “broke” it; against the advice of hundreds of real live war strategists and combat commanders, (Colin Powell, et al.); so now we are left to “fix” it.

We’ve tried throwing the band-aide at the problem by promoting democracy, that didn’t work,(the Iraqi’s elected mostly religious leaders selecting a theocracy instead); we’ve flown in millions of dollars to patch up the damage to the infrastrucure, (we lost it Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?”).

How can we “win” the “War In Iraq”? We can’t. Check your history.

By DJ

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

Wooten. Republicans. Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. That’s the strategy.

Only a kool-aid drinking ideologue would think there is one shred of positivity in SHRUB’s legacy. That’s right up there with thinking Anne Coulter has anything relevent to say.

By Republican Senators Continue to Obstruct Popular Bills

July 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

As pointed out yesterday, Congress’ poll numbers are low because Senate Republicans are blocking nearly every piece of legislation on the Democrats’ agenda with threats of filibuster (with such threats, it would take 60 votes – not 51 to legislate).

The House has actually been extremely productive, but unfortunately, the minority in the Senate is preventing progress on popular issues such as implementing the 9/11 Report recommendations to secure ports/chemical and nuclear plants, ethics reforms, ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare and others.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

July 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Debbie,

We can’t win, but GW and Dick sure can. All of their buddies are doing GREAT!.

Energy stocks are soaring. Defense contractor are making a killing. The religious right is sleeping good knowing that a born-again Christain is in the White House. Corporate America has unfetterd access to government.

Life is good…if you’re a right wing paranoid religious freak.

By DD

July 11, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

It’s a felony to lie to Congress about WMDs. Bush should be censored and tried.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Wooten.

By Drive-by Media

July 11, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Notice how the Right’s rhetoric has shifted toward the talking points I provided in my “We aint never gonna git out of Iraq” and “We can never leave, ever”, blogs?

I guess I do have an audience: talk radio hosts and GOP partisan pundits.

The right is stopping just short of saying that, but soon the American People will realize it, and then watch out.

The sound-bitten consequences of a pullout that Hannity, Rush, Bush, and Kissinger and McCain describe need only be taken one step further in logic: “If we pull out, (before the job is done), then….”

Well, those consequences have been impending for 10K years. Thus, we can deduce that those consequences of pulling out will exist for another 10k years. So we can NEVER pull out.

The right will soon blunder, as I have set them up to do, into admittng that we cant ever leave.

Cause what the Right is saying when they say, “..get the job done”, is an end to the 10K year old tribal feuds.

Let me Define the mission of US troops in Iraq: “To end the ten thousand year old enmities that make men slaughter each other over sand”.

What is war, people?

I try so hard to explain why we cant leave. I have to deal with the lessons of the socio-historical immigration of tribes into adjacent territories, and how that translates into modern enmities.

The Persians were constantly migrating outward with military missions. I have to define those missions as history judged them, and then extrapolate the lessons learned to the mission of our own troops in Iraq.

What I have deduced is very upsetting and frightening, and that’s why nobody wants to believe it.

But listen to Rush, listen to Bush, Listen to Kissinger. They’re seizing on the bait I sent them. My words have worms and cookies and m&m’s and everthing.

They are sounding more and more like me:

We aint nevah gonna git outta Iraq. We are there forever. It’s our 51st state. New Alabama. It’s a red state with a green thumb right up Osama’s azz.

To help yourself understand Iraq: Remember that the tribal feuds are 10K years old. Why would they end just because we pull out? So what the USA is faced with now is either staying in Iraq and foot-patrolling the neighborhoods to keep the peace, OR pulling out and letting 10K year old tribal feuders call in all their distant tribes to help them in Iraq. Distant tribes? Read China. Read any country where tribal links exist with Iraqis. That’s nearly all of them. It’s old. It’s so complex that we can be sure Bush didn’t understand them. Thus, we can know he’s incompetent, not evil.

I’ll be satisfied with an exiled Bush/Cheney. Let them go. We’ve got a country to save and a world to convince.

It’s Hillary in ‘08. Believe it. BTW: we want Hannity/Rush to pillary hillary. When their credibility is destroyed by the truth of our perpetual occupation of Iraq, then Hillary will seem like America’s only choice. Landslide.

Now we’ve got to get free access to healthcare for all Iraqis…I mean Americans, but then I repeat myself.

Now it’s on to chicago and we’ll win there……BOOM!.. they kilt PoFo…..

“…it’s getting dark….I feel cold….is someone baking bread…..I wasn’t even running for prez…..I forgot to duck….I’d rather be in Philidelphia…..I only regret that I have but one moron to give for my country……tell ma I always liked her apple pie…….ugh….castro is a bum…..”

Now he belongs to the ages…..

By Leave Iraq Now

July 11, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

I agree, let’s leave Iraq now. We should have left long ago.

I supported the decision to invade Iraq. I still think it was the right decision given the credible threat of WMD we were faced with. Please don’t trivialize the discussion with “Bush Lied” nonsense. It did not start with Bush. This intellegence failure goes back several administrations with Republicans and Democrats alike, Clinton included.

The population of Iraq toleratred Saddam for many years. They lived under his iron hand but accepted it as there was no resistance within to his bellicose posturing and attempts to dominate the region. As he boasted of nuclear capability and played coy with the UN, they rallied in the streets in support, burning the U.S flag shouting “Down with the Imperialists”. They didn’t like us then and apparently don’t like us now as our attempts to give them freedom have been met with great apathy among the citizens. If the people of Iraq are unwilling to step up and accept responsibility for their future by joining us in combating the terrorists, fine. Let them live under whatever conditions they want.

Our invasion was justified given the unknown threat that existed. Our Shock and Awe was quick, complete and successful as the vaunted Iraq military was thoroughly trounced. Once we toppled the regime (and symbolic statue) we should have continued the search for WMD. Finding none, we should have left immediately. The remaining citizens of Iraq could then be left to bomb each other, kill each other, eat each other, but we’re outta here. Just don’t rattle your tin sabre again threatening WMD.

Shock and Awe can be an effective deterrent to other dicators. North Korea, Iran and any others that proudly announce their intentions to develop WMD to threaten the world can expect to have the same severe rectal exam.

By Lily Toad

July 11, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

For those (like Wooten) who like to say that the public’s approval rating of Congress is lower than Bush’s approval — did you ever consider that’s because they haven’t ended the war yet?

By Lily Toad

July 11, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

For those (like Wooten) who like to say that the public’s approval rating of Congress is lower than Bush’s approval — did you ever consider that’s because they haven’t ended the war yet?

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

the pinko sicko curious peeping tom pukes up one of the funniest leftist LIES in a long while … “restore integrity to the SC” … HA HA HA HA -LMFAO!!!

what peeping tom actually means in plain English is let’s get a couple of nasty smug activist liberal dogturds back on the court so the putrid lefties can hopefully continue/resume their general dominance of the court.

peeping tom, like virtually ALL of the sad lefties on here is so pathologically sick and twisted and brimming with irrational Bush hate and GOP derangement syndrome it simply cannot EVER be honest!!!

harold needs to stop drinking so heavily so early in the morning - alcoholism makes you very unpatriotic and a simpering pathetic cowardly doltish hate America defeatist!!

NONE OF THE gutless cut and run LEFTIES ON HERE have guiven one second’s thought (as if they even could) to ANY of the catastrophic consequences of their yellowbellied cowardice!! Just so long as their typical moron attention span poll driven lets defeat Bush any way we can demands are achieved.

inbred rednekkk needs to stick its pimply pussfilled pointy white supremacist head in a vat of liquid nitrogen!!

I see the increasingly odious and deranged black racist crackpipe has finally slithered back on here after a double shift on Stewart Ave. crackpipe’s abject pig ignorance about towel head terror and mohammedans is enormously amusing to behold. crackpipe retches up its witless twisted drivel ignoring virtually EVERY SINGLE historical fact!! “predominantly muslim nations” HA HA HA … in the middle east there is NOTHING else - except Israel!! what a patronising brainless stupid ignorant b itch!!

this sad worthless dogturd crackpipe dementedly IGNORES Soddom’s nazi like genocidal history and Soddom’s total unwavering refusal to cooperate with the craven appeasing corrupt to the core racist UN and the wilful aggressive violation of just the SEVENTEEN - obviously worthless UN resolutions that the biggest criminal fraud in global appeasing history - fittingly administered (smirk) by the UN - was designed to utterly circumvent.

Mr Wooten does NOT have dementia!! You LYING whoralicious cow crackpipe … go pay your pimp and STFU!!! (see its real easy to be personally abusive on here).

Its jolly good fun mirroring back the obsessive leftist Bush/GOP hate on here … thanks for making it possible!!!

By dawg_gone_truth

July 11, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

We have a winner what lie did dusty tell? I read his crazy opinions but see no lies, what is your agenda? How many here have served in Iraq? I have, here are a few of my observations

The Iraqi Army is a joke, all they know is corruption.

Iraqi Police, joke, mostly terrorist themselves.

Iraqi people for the most part, good decent hard working people beat into submission for many many years.

Sunnis have had riches, shiites had nothing homes.

I don’t want to see mass murder but its going to happen, one way or the other, the Saudis have said they will defend the sunnis, and Iran has said they will defend the Shia, so when we leave what you think is going to happen? I want our guys out too, but I don’t want us to have to ever go back, I would rather go back and finish the job as have my kids have to go in 5 to 10 years.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Debbiedoright The war in Iraq has already been won. The terrorism has not. Lets fight that war like it it is on our soil because it already is.

By George

July 11, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw at 9:30 doesn’t seem to know that it was a Republican president that ended the war in Vietnam.

By Drive-by Media

July 11, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

The power vacuum of any US pullout will be one hundred thousand times stronger than the pull of gravity.

The Dyson Pullout. It see a movie. Like the Bourne Supremacy.

Script: “The Dyson Pullout”

starring Chairman Mao, as the devil.

Vladimir Putin as the antichrist.

and Bush as the Beaver.

By Craig also

July 11, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

And by the way, all you who whine about Viet Nam, look at the place today. Not exactly a beacon of democracy perhaps, but increasingly becoming friendly to the United States. No doubt a better result than if we had stayed and sacrificed another 50,000 soldiers, as jbmlaw and Wooten wished.

By harold

July 11, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

thing is, the US can withdraw from Iraq and see what happens. We already see what happens when we stay there. if we withdraw and it somehow gets worse, well it was certainly easy enough to get there to begin with and would be quite easy to go there again would it not

dubya keeps trying things and just seeing what happens. he has no plan for anything. so why not try withdrawal and see what happens? if somethign worse than what’s ongoing happens, reinvade if necessary

occupation should not be permanent, and withdrawal need not be permanent if withdrawal is somehow less successful than staying

what is so hard about that?

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

RCH are you ok?

Debbiedoright Do we have to wait to be invaded before we attack? Did we not make that same mistake before WWII? Lets wipe out the enemy before he gets that chance.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements that I’ve ever read. Pre-emptive strikes works both ways. If Russia feels that we are a threat to them, they can take the same approach — “Let’s wipe out America before they do us”. I guess by your post I can see you did not pass Reason 101 in college.

If 92% of the Iraq people support us, why should we be concerned with what other Muslim countries belief.

RCH the Muslim religion is the most dominant religion in the world. There are more Muslims than Christians in the world, (70% compared to 24%); and they are interwoven throughout every nation in the world. That’s a LOT of people to p** off.

And if you belief that when we leave Iraq the violence against us will stop, I have some ocean front property in Alpharetta to sell you.

Since this ill planned invasion, the violence against the US has increased tenfold. Militants are recruiting moderates every day because of the illegal Iraqi invasion; using it as a “blueprint” on how they theorize that America is trying to convert and bully the world. This is a region which has historical reason to doubt the validity of the Chrisitian/US/Western world’s word, (Christian Crusades).

By Drive-by Media

July 11, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Lets see. What can I make Rush/Hannity say today? Let’s have some fun. Okay, they dont want to go so far as to admit that we cant ever leave iraq, cause they’d be hung by the certain mob-rule that info would create, so lets see if they can blame Gore for losing the election on purpose, that is, reverse cheating, taking a fall from certain victory, which would have prevented us from being in Iraq in the first place!!

Yes! Gore himself used the internet to place a virus in all the Diebold machines so that he would lose the election! Because Gore was a friend of the Osama bin Laden family and they told him about 911! so he didn’t want to have to start the war!!

That’s it!! Listening rush?

By Bush Misleads Public About Iraqi Threat

July 11, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Leave Iraq Now at 11:06 wrote, “Please don’t trivialize the discussion with “Bush Lied” nonsense. It did not start with Bush. This intellegence failure goes back several administrations with Republicans and Democrats alike, Clinton included.”

Dear sir or madam,

President Clinton never connected Iraq and Osama bin Ladin. You do remember Bush asking us to imagine Saddam Hussein sharing weapons of mass destruction with al Queda, do you not?

President Clinton never suggested that Iraq was a nuclear threat. You do remember continual references to a “mushroom cloud” over an American city, do you not?

These were not credible threats volunteered to the White House by the CIA. Our President and Vice President (with help from George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice and others) cherry-picked intelligence to support their aspirations.

President Bush eliminated the caveats (“We can’t sell this to Joe Public.”) and exaggerated the threat for public consumption. If you read the book, “Plan of Attack”, you’ll see that the White House also manipulated the intelligence for Congressional consumption as well.

In short, BUSH LIED, and I for one, would like to see him impeached.

By Dusty

July 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

We Have a Winner @ 10:46,

You are absolutely correct. jbmlaw is usually a winner. But I didn’t know we were playing games. Seems you are. Referee?? Trying to throw someone out the game?

Like Bobby Cox, you can throw one out of the game but the team keeps playing. The conservative team, thank you. And we are winners. We’ll support the war and the troops even with your miscalls.

So much for that. Liberals are purely tiresome. They need some new leaders to tell them what to say.

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

RCH

it is utterly pointless even trying to ‘reasonably’ engage crackpipe - not only is it repeatedly viscerally personally abusive to Mr Wooten, which is boorish and pointless - but it is, as we see continuously, incapable of rational, informed debate. Its just another one of many far left nutters who equates cutting and running with a twisted pyhrric victory over Bush, regardless of the medium and long term consequences for the US and the west. Although given the deep, usually hysterical anti-American antipathy evinced by numerous supposed NATO allies perhaps the US should only really care about those that have consistently supported us in the liberation of Iraq and the war on towel head terror.

The best fun to be had on here is just mirroring back their abuse - albeit more wittily and sardonically than they are capable of.

These hateful appeasing lefties would have swiftly and resoundingly LOST WWII if they’d behaved like this, second guessing and undermining every single military/political move. Publishing policy and operational secrets etc. The Japs and the Nazis would have at least held what they had very bloodily conquered for a good while longer, until the leftist enemy within the continental US had been routed.

By dawg_gone_truth

July 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Harold What is hard about it is the infrastructure that we have built and the relationships with the people. When George Liar Sr during the first gulf war left the anti saddam shia’s in the south and the Kurds in the north to be wiped out by Saddam after liar promised them support, it was hard this time to convince them that we would stay and help if they rebuild. The Iraqi Army will fold within weeks of our pull out, everything we have built to support our military will be looted and when we reinvade its just that much more money and lives lost, and next time the friendly Iraqis won’t be so friendly after families have been slaughtered again. Iraqis are learning to be free, but we need them to set up an honest government, but hell we don’t have that here, we are damned if we do and if we don’t.

I’m somewhat torn here, had friends die there, don’t want their deaths to be in vain, but I also don’t want another American to die doing what an Iraqi soldier should do, what a mess. Sounds like the war my Dad fought in.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Debbiedoright Wipe out the enemy is a multi front battle. Economic, cultural, and militarily. You may have seen reports of turmoil in Iran. Lets just add a little fuel to the fire. Lets give aid to those who would overthrow this govt. Sound familiar? Lets use their own tactics against them.

Since most of the conflicts in the world involve Muslims, I believe its safe to assume that it is not the United states to blame for all the terrorism in the world. I believe it is the radical Muslims that have preached jihad and world domination. Not us.

We serve the best interst of the citizens of the United States. We should not serve to please others( Muslims) at their expense. I am tired of trying to buy friendship. I would rather have their respect.

By the way Che attempted to export his type of terrorism from Cuba to Bolivia. With a strong govt. and military we saw how unsuccessful he was.

By No More.

July 11, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Republicans got us into this war. Republicans have screwed up this war. Republicans have let their corporate buddies profit from this war. Republicans have allowed the cost of this war to balloon to over 10 billion dollars every month. Republicans have ignored the troops needs. Republicans have let the likes of Dick Cheney erode our basic liberties and rights. And we, the American people, have no one to blame but ourselves for standing by and letting them do it. It is time to fix this broken machine.

By Van

July 11, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Bush Misleads Public About Iraqi Threat

And Congress ate it up.

I guess you missed the televised statement from President Clinton in Dec, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,”

As part of his message, President Clinton said:

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.”

So crawl back into your shell.

By Anonymous

July 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Why should Bush pay attention to what the American people want? He never has before.

Now everybody hush up and let Daddy Bush make all your decisions for you. You don’t know HOW to run a country, you silly things.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright The war in Iraq has already been won. The terrorism has not. Lets fight that war like it it is on our soil because it already is

RCH are you feeling o.k.? Let’s do a quick health check:

Do you seem a little light headed? Are you experiencing double vision? Are you seeing Ronald Reagan? Is he wearing underwear? Did he remember to put them on? Are your lower extremities working improperly? Can you move your left butt cheek to the beat of Baba Loo? Is Barbara Bush suddenly looking like a straight up fox to you? Do you have a sudden urge to go out and rent the DVD “Nixon”; denounce the Dixie Chicks and sing songs song by the Liberty University Choir? Do you think Dumbya is doing a good job? If you could, would you vote for him again?

If you’ve answered “yes” to any of these questions, please, please, PLEASE go immediately to the nearest strip club and try to get laid. You’ve been jerking off too long to Bush/Cheney politics and you’re totally getting f#cked by their rhetoric. I’m sorry to be the one who has to tell you.

By Drive-by Media

July 11, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Kissinger must read this blog to have come so close to my posts yesterday.

Kissinger is reading me. Wow. Lovin’ the internet.

Okay. Do not mention about why we are in Iraq. moot. we have to deal with reality now. We need a draft. We need our best and brightest in Iraq, not felons and old men.

A draft. If Hillary was prez, she would be courageous enough to draft a larger army for what needs to happen in Iraq: A policeman on every corner.

We need a million men in Iraq. (a million men? shouldn’t you predict more men? I mean, a million isn’t exactly a lot of men these days. China has a billion man army alone)

Okay, why dont you people tell me these things? I’ve been frozen for 50 years for jeebers sakes. throw me a fricken bone.

We need one hundred mill…..er….billion men!

By JP

July 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Aren’t benchmarks or milestones a significant tool in a project manager’s toolbelt?

Isn’t Bush an MBA?

By It's not a game if people die

July 11, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Van, syphillis is a public health threat too. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go shooting everyone’s cheney off. Using Bush’s logic, since YOU didn’t sleep with the pros-ti-tute and spread the disease, we should just take yours off, you know “in case,” (you have that look about you) and leave the actual John intact, hiding out in a Motel Six in Douglasville while we pretend we don’t know where he is.

By Van

July 11, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

It’s not a game if people die,

What the heck are you babbling about. Stop using “mind expanding” drugs.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright The war has already been won. We have toppled their leadership. (Ask Sadam and his sons). We have defeated their Armies, and we occupy their land. Sounds like a win to me .What we have now is:

“Some wars or war-like actions end when the military objective of the victorious side has been achieved. Others do not, especially in cases where the state structures do not exist, or have collapsed prior to the victory of the conqueror. In such cases, disorganised guerilla warfare may continue for a considerable period”

Lets now defeat the terrorists and those who sponsor them. The Iraq people deserve that.

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Do you seem a little light headed? Are you experiencing double vision? Are you seeing Ronald Reagan? Is he wearing underwear? Did he remember to put them on? Are your lower extremities working improperly? Can you move your left butt cheek to the beat of Baba Loo? Is Barbara Bush suddenly looking like a straight up fox to you? Do you have a sudden urge to go out and rent the DVD “Nixon”; denounce the Dixie Chicks and sing songs song by the Liberty University Choir? Do you think Dumbya is doing a good job? If you could, would you vote for him again?

If you’ve answered “yes” to any of these questions, please, please, PLEASE go immediately to the nearest strip club and try to get laid. You’ve been jerking off too long to Bush/Cheney politics and you’re totally getting f#cked by their rhetoric. I’m sorry to be the one who has to tell you.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOH … get the whoralicious robotic crackpipe ho b itch!!!

talking of “strip clubs” crackpipe - as you just did - have you forcibly, if not reluctantly changed careers very recently?

crackpipe is hysterically getting even nastier and even more venomous … but this is EXACTLY what we right wing conservatives want to see …worthless B ITCHES AND DOGTURDS like crackpipe and its sullen hate America ilk treasonously melting down whilst we (almost) p!ss ourselves laughing at the yellowbellied perfidious cut and run obsessive hate Bush, hate Cheney lefties!!!

SNIGGER SMIRK SNIGGER

come on crackpipe post another half dozen pathetic “pictures” of yours truly … you know you really want to!!

then crawl back into your smelly stinky abortion bucket!!!

just enjoying mirroring back the hysterical leftist hate … again!!

By Craig also

July 11, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Oh and by the way, 92% of Iraqis want us to stay? Do you have any idea how silly that is? You KNOW it’s not true - and even if it was, so what? 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq - I’d rather the Prez listened to us.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Time For The Straight Jacket: This one’s for you!!

Enjoy!!

By melo

July 11, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Stay the CURSE until the Dumbster is out of office, thats the way to ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION.

Immigration..NO MASS,IRAQ..NO MASS, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND..YES CHILDREN LEFT WAY BEHIND,BUDGET GIAGUNTUM DEFICIT,HADITHA,QUATANAMO,TORTURE,So whats its(BUSHWIT) legacy?

By bush

July 11, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Hi this is George Bush. I will get the milestones report done just as soon as I learn about Gantt and Pert Charts.

ok not really.. this is harold.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Craig Yes, they want us to get themselves back on their feet and the leave. Is not that what we want?

By winorlose

July 11, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

“setting a date for failure”

This is probably right, but the question of whether failure is inevitable has to be answered. At this point the answer seems to clearly be yes; so what is the point to continue sacrificing about 100 American lives and $12 billion a month? (Remember the predictions of a cost of maybe $60 billion with very few soldiers lost?) We aren’t going to stay fully engaged in Iraq indefinitely. The political landscape dictates that at least a partial pullout will begin before the 2008 elections because the Republicans don’t want to lose everything because of this one issue (no resolution in sight come Novemeber 2008 would do it) and the Democrats need to show some kind of progress on the issue that won them back Congress. So they will come to some sort of agreement. The Bush Administration will eventually cave. This won’t be because of weak-minded Republicans as Jim says but because smart Republicans won’t want to give away the Presidency, wide margins in Congress, and a shot at a truly conservative Supreme Court just to delay an inevitable withdrawal. It may happen anyway, but with no kind of resolution it is almost a certainty.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright The war has already been won. We have toppled their leadership. (Ask Sadam and his sons). We have defeated their Armies, and we occupy their land.

“We” defeated a man that we set up into a position of power with weapons, money and intelligence. So basically, we defeated ourselves.

Sounds like a win to me

That’s because you don’t know any better.

Lets now defeat the terrorists and those who sponsor them. The Iraq people deserve that.

RCH we’re the ones who set the “terrorists and those who sponser them” loose on the Iraqi people. Sigh.

By Dusty

July 11, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

dawg-gone-truth @11:48,

In which war did your father fight?

Sometimes, I think loyal Americans can get tired of fighting for freedom. I see the pictures on television almost every night of military persons killed in the MidEast. Some look like they should have been in High School. A heavy burden of grief descends. You want it to stop. I imagine that is the way you feel about the loss of your friends.

I don’t think we can stop the grief. But we can remember in this war, the military volunteered for service and they knew that might entail fighting for their country. They signed on and that is what they are doing. Fighting for our country like brave people. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know already.

Do we show enough appreciation? NO. Do we appreciate our own country? NO. Are we able to overcome difficulties and disagreements? YES!!

Please don’t get too discouraged. America has been through tough times before. We Americans sometimes disagree vehemently with each other but we fight our enemies who would make us their slaves or kill us.

I hope that you will soon feel better about the difficulty of keeping freedom. I’ll just throw in that old cliche: Hang in there, buddy!

By Van and Facts = Oil and Water

July 11, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Van at 11:59,

Please allow me to demonstrate, yet again, why Van is an idiot (as if he doesn’t demonstrate that himself on a daily basis).

In Van’s very own quote, Clinton was referring to potential threats from other countries that are the “kind of threat” posed by Iraq. Also, Clinton was speculating about potential threats that are similar to Iraq (“In the next century, the community of nations may see…”).

Speculating about potential threats from other “rogue states” is a very different thing than making a definitive connections [between Saddam Hussein and al Queda] that are unsupported, no, contradicted by the evidence in order to persuade the Congress and the public to support a war. Van can’t see that, but thankfully, most Americans can.

(Note: Please recall that President Clinton opposed invading Iraq when Hans Blix and others were arguing vehemently that Iraq was cooperating with U.N. inspectors and that the inspection teams were making good progress.)

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

This deranged sicko anti-war leftist happily killed itself - just not soon enough though - it should have killed itself BEFORE its cowardly attack on an USAF chap.

Now we see where the obsessive psychotic hate Bush left is going - shooting (and very likely) killing US military folks.

Just yet another rock solid reason to permanently get rid of ALL the hate America anti-war left!!

Funny how the party of hate liberal media hasn’t been screeching about this gutless attack on an innocent military man. Can’t have deranged leftie scum shown in a bad light though - can we??!!

Suicidal gunman ‘angry at the government’

By DAVID LEVINSKY PhillyBurbs.com

WILLINGBORO — The Pennsauken man who shot and wounded a member of the U.S. Air Force before killing himself left suicide notes that indicated he was “angry at the government and wanted to make a statement” on Independence Day, one of the man’s relatives said yesterday.

Matthew J. Marren, 22, of Walnut Avenue, drove to a home on Windsor Lane rented by Senior Airman Jonathan Schrieken, 22, at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Marren got of this vehicle, found Schrieken outside the house, shot him once in the chest with a small-caliber firearm, then turned the gun on himself, said Burlington County First Assistant Prosecutor Ray Milavsky.

Marren was pronounced dead at Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County in Willingboro later Wednesday night.

Schrieken was taken to Cooper University Hospital in Camden where was listed in critical but stable condition yesterday afternoon, Milavsky said.

Schrieken is stationed at McGuire Force Base. He works as a loadmaster for the 6th Airlift Squadron.

Marren’s aunt, Terina Henderson of Trion, Ga., said she spoke to Marren’s mother yesterday who told her Marren left two notes, one in his home and one in his car, indicating he was upset with the government.

She said she did not know the exact wording in the notes, but said Marren was “mad at the government and wanted to make a statement … that’s why he did what he did on the Fourth of July.”

By Greg

July 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

The President squandered the support of conservatives championing the immigration bill, especially with his characterization of those of us who disagreed with him. Personally, I don’t think he will ever recover from that mistake. I agree with Peggy Noonan - he has fractured the Republican Party and cannot put it back together again. The nation’s security will suffer as a result.

By Van

July 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Van and Facts = Oil and Water,

Hey, Meth mouth, very good twisted logic.

Too bad you can not come to the same level of understanding of the terrorist threats that President Bubba did. I guess you and the others in the trailer park are only listening to the voices in your own head.

Saddam and other terrorist networks, yes, they did do business together.

WMD’s, yes Saddam could have made a lot of money by selling off his surplus weapons. Did he? I don’t know. Could he, yes.

By C.K.

July 11, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

The “Clinton did it too” excuse has always been lame, irrelevent, and is now long past it’s prime. Anybody who uses that line should, to borrow a phrase, “crawl back into his shell”.

By getalife

July 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Reid was right.

This occupation is lost because the Iraqi government does not even bother to show up.

Just more wasted lives and billions.

Pathetic.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Straight Jacket: Found a really nice picture of your sister

I guess it just runs in the family huh?

By Thinkin' Out Loud

July 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

Greg wrote, “The President squandered the support of conservatives championing the immigration bill, especially with his characterization of those of us who disagreed with him.”

I believe that Greg is absolutely correct. In fact, this is the very same reason that Democrats turned on Joe Leiberman so quickly — not because of Leiberman’s views on the war, but because of his characterization of those who disagreed with him. Other Democrats were arguing the “stay the course” approach at the same time that Lieberman was before the last election (including Democratic front-runner, Senator Clinton), but it was Lieberman’s demogoguery that did him in with his own party.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright What do consider a win, us leaving. I ask you do you want to win? Or would that cripple your political agenda?

“We” defeated a man that we set up into a position of power with weapons, money and intelligence. So basically, we defeated ourselves.”

We never set this man up in power. He seizes it himself. We gave him limited arms and intelligence to fight the Iranians.

“RCH we’re the ones who set the “terrorists and those who sponser them” loose on the Iraqi people. Sigh.”

Why not just kill the terrorist and supporters. They are murderers. Why are you protecting and enabling them? That way the Iraq people can decide their own fate. Islamic terrorist strike the world over. I guess we are responsible for that to!

By JustMe

July 11, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

It a Democrat was President, making the same decision that George W. has made during his term, the Republicans would be calling for Impeachment.

Why doesn’t Congress call for Bush’s Impeachment? He has done far, far worse than getting a BJ in the oval office!

By harold

July 11, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

the antigovernment murderer was having income tax issues. it had nothign to do with iraqistan

By getalife

July 11, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

“Today the Republican Party once again lacked the courage to put their votes where their mouths are, and once again blocked a vote to support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. By a 41-56 vote, Republicans blocked an up and down vote on the Webb Amendment, proving yet again that for the Republican Party, supporting the troops is just a slogan. Because when it came time to act, they returned to their accustomed role as the President’s lackey.”

The gop are cowards, pure and simple. No wonder we lost to a third world country again.

Pathetic.

By melo

July 11, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

GOP PROSTITUTES “David Vitter has visited with my girls, and he has to be one of the nicest men and most honorable men I have ever met,” Jeanette Maier, known as the Canal Street madam of New Orleans, told CNN affiliate WDSU.”“nicest man”” means most generous prostitute!

ANOTHER GOP PROSTITUTE

Vitter is the first lawmaker known to be linked to Palfrey’s business, though State Department official Randall Tobias — who promoted abstinence education as head of the Bush administration’s effort to curb the spread of AIDS — resigned in May after confirming he patronized Palfrey’s business.

Go Figure!!

By jbmlaw

July 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Dear George @ 11:21, I submit that “Republican” and “Conservative” are not identical terms. I also know that the “honorable” peace negotiated in 1973 was undermined by a similar cut and run mentality among our similarly honorable Democrat majority in Congress, in 1975.

By jbmlaw

July 11, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

I fear I was correct in my 9:30 post - not only do none of our regular progressives (specifically excluding AmVet and Southern Democrat) offer a plan to win in Iraq, neither will even one say they wish for the US to win. As is the case with Moslem condemnation of terrorists, the silence speaks volumes.

By AmVet

July 11, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Dusty, well said at 11:48.

Like it or not, we’re all in this together - liberal, middle-of-the-roader, conservative, democrat, republican, independent.

dawggonetruth, also some really good points. It’s easy to blame George Bush and Dick Cheney. And without doubt they do deserve an enormous amount of the “credit” for the current horrifically mismanaged situation in Iraq.

But you’re right, American foreign policy in the Middle East, including Iraq, has been a debacle for a long, long time.

So now we get to reap the harvest of the seeds we planted decades ago. What a shame that the fruit is so damn bitter.

By GOP Grows National Debt to 62% of GDP

July 11, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Because of the upcoming presidential race, there is a debate among economists about what the Dems should do about economic policy. There are tons of good ideas out there. However, there is a point of contention about the deficit. Should we accept a certain amount of deficit spending to promote certain polices/initiatives or should be deal with the deficit first?

The former point of view was best outlined in the paper Breaking the Stranglehold on Growth issued by the Economic Policy Institute. The later school of thought — reducing the deficit — is espoused by members of the Hamilton Project. For reasons outlined below, I think the Hamilton Projects Proscription of dealing with the deficit first is the best idea for the simple reason the deficit is already at high levels and will only get worse.

The EPI’s Primary Argument is a deficit spending is OK if the money spent is for national investment — education, infrastructure etc…. As stated in the paper Breaking the Stranglehold on Growth.

Deficits can be justified even in times of full utilization of resources if they result from public investment in neglected areas with high potential financial and social returns, such as early education or transportation infrastructure. The nation should begin making formal projections of the future tax revenues and social benefits of such government investment.

I am not debating the wisdom of any of their policy proscriptions because they are all damn good ideas. I wish they were possible. But the reality of our current situation is the deficit is already at incredibly high levels and must be dealt with now.

First, let’s look at where we are now. According to the US Treasury, the total amount of US debt outstanding has risen sharply in the last 6 years.

Year Total Government Debt…Increase From Preceding Year

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23…$574,264,237,491.73

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50…$553,656,965,393.18

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32…$595,821,633,586.70

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62…$554,995,097,146.46

09/30/2002$6,228,235,965,597.16…$420,772,553,397.10

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

The total amount of debt now stands at 62% of GDP. However, the build-up happened very quietly because of the record low interest rates of the last six years. Even so, the total amount of interest is increasing.

So far, the US has been pretty lucky when it comes to interest rates. Although we are issuing over $550 billion net new debt per year for the last 5 years, we haven’t had an increase in the amount of interest we have to pay on the debt. However, as the amount of total debt outstanding increases, lenders will eventually start demanding a higher interest rate as compensation for the increased risk of a credit default. There is no magic economic line when this will happen. However, the more debt we issue, the higher the possibility of an increase in interest rates.

This is why the US has to deal with the deficit first. While I agree with the idea of deficit spending when the deficit is at a manageable level, the US is simply too far in the hole right now. We have to deal with the deficit, or those increased interest payments will start to deal with us. And that’s a place no country wants to be.

By Lane

July 11, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, “I submit that “Republican” and “Conservative” are not identical terms.”

That’s correct. Despite claims to the contrary, Republicans are not conservative. Now that you mention it, conservatives aren’t conservative either.

By harold

July 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

we can certainly say we wish the US would have won, but alas, it is a loss. to say now “golly i hope we win” would be pure foolishness

By Dusty

July 11, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Amvet@1:22,

Thank you for your kind words.

Just one thing, I don’t believe I mentioned any long time debacle. To what are you referring?

And we “planted seeds” decades ago? There have been conflicts in the Middle East so many times over so many centuries, what did you have in mind that we “planted”?

Will check back with you later today. Cheers!!

By RCH

July 11, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Harold Explain to me how we have a “loss”? And tell me this, if you had all the resources of the USA behind you, could you win?

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

RCH how many times must I say this “WE CAN’T WIN IN IRAQ!!” Duh.

We never set this man up in power. He seizes it himself. We gave him limited arms and intelligence to fight the Iranians

Man!! You are realllly brainwashed!! Let me drop some knowledge on you:

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim, (An Iraqi officer who overthrew the British-installed monarchy in 1958), led by Abdul Karim Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.’

1)The first time the US enabled Saddam Hussein came in 1959. In that year, a young Saddam, from the boondock town of Tikrit but living with an uncle in Baghdad, tried to assassinate Qasim.

2)2) After the failed coup attempt, Saddam fled to Cairo, where he attended law school in between bar brawls, and where it is alleged that he retained his CIA connections there, being put on a stipend by the agency via the Egyptian government. He frequently visited US operatives at the Indiana Cafe. Getting him back on his feet in Cairo was the second episode of US aid to Saddam.

3)The US supplied the names of Communists to the Baath, which rooted them out and killed them. Saddam Hussein was brought back from Cairo as an interrogator and quickly rose to become head of Baath Intelligence.

There’s more, but you’ll have to read it for yourself.

By The Arithmetic Of Failure

July 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, Dusty, Van and others —

Give it up. Iraq is a lost cause. It’s just a matter of arithmetic: given the violence of the environment, with ethnic groups and rival militias at each other’s throats, American forces there are large enough to suffer terrible losses, but far too small to stabilize the country.

We’re so undermanned that don’t even have the ability to influence events: Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki continues to reject American efforts to set a timetable for reining in the militias.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a war we haven’t yet lost, and it’s just possible that a new commitment of forces there might turn things around.

The moral is clear — we need to get out of Iraq, not because we want to cut and run, but because our continuing presence is doing nothing but wasting American lives. And if we do free up our forces (and those of our British allies), we might still be able to save Afghanistan.

The classic analysis of the arithmetic of insurgencies is a 1995 article by James T. Quinlivan, an analyst at the Rand Corporation. “Force Requirements in Stability Operations,” published in Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College, looked at the number of troops that peacekeeping forces have historically needed to maintain order and cope with insurgencies. Mr. Quinlivan’s comparisons suggested that even small countries might need large occupying forces.

Specifically, in some cases it was possible to stabilize countries with between 4 and 10 troops per 1,000 inhabitants. But examples like the British campaign against communist guerrillas in Malaya and the fight against the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland indicated that establishing order and stability in a difficult environment could require about 20 troops per 1,000 inhabitants.

The implication was clear: “Many countries are simply too big to be plausible candidates for stabilization by external forces,” Mr. Quinlivan wrote.

Maybe, just maybe, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could have been managed in such a way that a force the United States was actually capable of sending would have been enough to maintain order and stability. But that didn’t happen, and at this point Iraq is a cauldron of violence, far worse than Malaya or Ulster ever was. And that means that stabilizing Iraq would require a force of at least 20 troops per 1,000 Iraqis — that is, 500,000 soldiers and marines.

We don’t have that kind of force. The combined strength of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is less than 700,000 — and the combination of America’s other commitments plus the need to rotate units home for retraining means that only a fraction of those forces can be deployed for stability operations at any given time. Even maintaining the forces we now have deployed in Iraq, which are less than a third as large as the Quinlivan analysis suggests is necessary, is slowly breaking the Army.

Meanwhile, what about Afghanistan?

Given the way the Bush administration relegated Afghanistan to sideshow status, it comes as something of a shock to realize that Afghanistan has a larger population than Iraq. If Afghanistan were in as bad shape as Iraq, stabilizing it would require at least 600,000 troops — an obvious impossibility.

However, things in Afghanistan aren’t yet as far gone as they are in Iraq, and it’s possible that a smaller force — one in that range of 4 to 10 per 1,000 that has been sufficient in some cases — might be enough to stabilize the situation. But right now, the forces trying to stabilize Afghanistan are absurdly small: we’re trying to provide security to 30 million people with a force of only 32,000 Western troops and 77,000 Afghan national forces.

If we stopped trying to do the impossible in Iraq, both we and the British would be able to put more troops in a place where they might still do some good. But we have to do something soon: the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan says that most of the population will switch its allegiance to a resurgent Taliban unless things get better by this fall.

It’s hard to believe that the world’s only superpower is on the verge of losing not just one but two wars. But the arithmetic of stability operations suggests that unless we give up our futile efforts in Iraq, we’re on track to do just that.

By Curious Observer

July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

We can deal with the deficit easily. Curiously—no pun intended—getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and the expenditures on the war on Iraq will just about equal the annual increase in national debt that GOP Grows National Debt to 62% of GDP cites.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright Read the same info. It was not all confirmed. During that time period the CIA supplied many members of the Bath party but not Saddam directly.

Your argument is weak.

By Shawn G

July 11, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Ultra-conservative Wooten says, “He (Bush) needs to beef up support from his base in an effort to keep Senate Republicans from succumbing to poll numbers.”

What happened to doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do?—not because the dis-illusioned base thinks it is ok? It is time to end this disaster now and get out for good. If Bush, Wooten, and the “base” want to stay, then I will pack their bags for them today.

By harold

July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

nope, harold can’t win either.

with 100 iraqis in front of you, if 10 are trying to kill you and the remaining 90 are in three groups of 30 who all want to kill the other two groups, how are you going to win?

harold will tell you how to win- you start killing them by the 10’s of thousands at once, and then they will get in line and behave

there was a REASON saddam was such an a-hole. that is what it took.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

*By The Arithmetic Of Failure *

The point is to train the Iraqis to stabilize themselves. If Bush made one mistake it was to disband the Iraq army and civil service. Those groups could have been retrained and ready to run the country at a faster pace then we now see. Mistake.

By the decider

July 11, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Victory Is Not an Option The Mission Can’t Be Accomplished — It’s Time for a New Strategy By William E. Odom - William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at Yale and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute. Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01 Washington Post The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (attachment 2) starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush’s illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat. Its gloomy implications — hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact — put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon. Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating “nonbinding resolutions” that oppose the president’s plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. For the moment, the collision of the public’s clarity of mind, the president’s relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress’s anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of “who gets the blame” could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East. No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment that the president’s policy is based on illusions, not realities. There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question: First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly “constitutional” — meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq. Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now expected to create a constitutional order in a country with no conditions favoring it. This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable constitutional democracy beyond their capacities. Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis’ rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command. As Congress awakens to these realities — and a few members have bravely pointed them out — will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president’s new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them. 1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess — the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a “failed state,” or some other horror. But this “aftermath” is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists. 2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran’s influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president’s initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power — groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran. Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran’s ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences. 3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq’s doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now. 4) We must continue to fight in order to “support the troops.” This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops? During their first tours, most may well have favored “staying the course” — whatever that meant to them — but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground. But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president’s course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that “the buck stops” in the Oval Office? If the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress? Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit. The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region. Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East. Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening “regime change,” using the hysterical rhetoric of the “global war on terrorism” — all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East. Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a “tactical draw” and make “regional stability” our measure of “victory.” That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have. Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood. If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery. If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy

By Southern Democrat

July 11, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

To my friends on the right,

I just got off the phone with an old, old friend from Texas who is the most conservative persons I know. During our catching up, I mentioned this blog and commentary and he read a few of the postings. He said that his sense is that most people like him (ultra-conservative) in Houston are like him and think we should get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. He also said that most ultra-conservatives look at Cheney as being an embarrassment the way many liberals did about Clinton. He thinks that the opinions expressed by Wooten and others are in the minority of those on the right and that the immigration debate showed that conservatives still have enormous influence, but are picking their battles much more readily.

This is a trusted, trusted friend, so I am curious if my friends on the right sense this shift (if it even is a shift) and feel that the ideas expressed by Mr. Wooten are in the minority?

To give you some idea of my friend’s political thinking, he is supporting either Tancredo or Brownback, but he thinks both are a tad too liberal (!)… as you might imagine, we have had some feisty debates in the past.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

RCH I supplied you with the link; please read it in its entirety, if at that point you still don’t understand, I will can dumb it down for you. Perhaps in a format like this:

Hop On Pop. Pop can Hop. STOP you must not Hop on Pop!

Or: Green eggs and Ham. I will not eat them on a train, I will not eat them in the rain……

By Melinda

July 11, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

RCH doesn’t seem to understand that we’re not arming and training Iraqis to stabilize their country. Despite our good intentions, we’re actually arming and training Iraqis such that the existing civil war will be even more lethal than it otherwise might have been.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

* Southern Democrat*

“He also said that most ultra-conservatives look at Cheney as being an embarrassment the way many liberals did about Clinton.”

This may be the case but if they got the chance those same liberals would vote Clinton right back into office.

By AmVet

July 11, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Dusty, I agree that the “Holy Land” and immediate environs have been a viper’s pit of killers and assassins for centuries. But America’s track record in that particularly sensitive geo-political spot on the globe, especially in the past 25 years or so, has been, shall we say, extremely mixed, if not outright ineffective.

There are numerous reasons why the US has made the choices it has there, and there are two really, really big ones. Hint: one starts with an I and the other with an O.

Ironically, see the post at 1:42 for a beginning of a long list of American misjudgments in the ME. Also just picture in your mind that endearing photo of Reagan’s special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein smiling and glad-handing each other back in 1983.

The Arithmetic Of Failure

Fascinating. But when one looks at the situation on the ground in Iraq, common sense says it is ludicrous to have those same limited number of GIs and Marines go back there over and over and over again to that shooting gallery of a hellhole.

One of the mild surprises of this “war” has been how the hawks have never uttered the dreaded d word. Conscription could certainly solve the math problem you allude to.

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

It appears the neo-cons have retired the phrase “cut-and-run.” No longer can they try to control the agenda by speaking loudly and without facts. 70% of the American public want our troops out the Iraqi shooting gallery; 40% want Dubya impeached; 60% want Cheney impeached; the leaves Nancy Pelosi next in line. A Senate committee has voted to withhold funds from Cheney because he says he is not part of the Executive Branch of the government, therefore, they will fund him just like he is a Senator. Where does he hide now?

By The Arithmetic Of Failure

July 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

A draft today would likely go over about as well in Georgia as it did when Jefferson Davis introduced his conscription bill in 1862.

“Georgia’s bellicose governor, Joseph E. Brown, who had been a thorn in Jefferson Davis’ thigh from the birth of the Confederacy until its demise, declared the draft to be contrary to all the South was fighting for.”

By Tony

July 11, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Bring back the draft,then lets see what the chicken hawks say and this time the rich kids go too. It’s easy to say the war should keep going while our asses are sitting in safe America. Also to the misguided person Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but Bin Laden did and he is still free.Remember wanted dead or alive?

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Would the neo-cons and so-called conservatives come out of hiding and explain to everyone how they support our troops.

Sports

Arts & Living

City Guide

Jobs

Cars

Real Estate

Rentals

Classifieds

SEARCH: washingtonpost.com Web Powered by Google | Search Archives washingtonpost.com

Politics Print This Article E-Mail This Article  E-mail Newsletters View a Sample and Sign Up

Manage Your Newsletters today in slate SlateHarry Potter Hits Puberty Senate GOP Blocks Longer Leave for Troops Setback Comes in First Test of Democratic War Proposals

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 2:36 PM

Legislation that would have required longer troop rests between combat deployments fell today to a Republican filibuster, but GOP fissures over President Bush’s war policies continued to widen, with two more Republican senators signing on to binding troop withdrawal dates.

The Senate voted 56-41 to cut off debate on an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that would have mandated that troops be granted home leave between deployments of at least as long as their previous combat tours. Already stretched National Guard and Reserve units would have been granted three-year breaks between assignments.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

Tony Bring back the draft and this conflict would be won in a week. Lets draft all able bodied individuals including the so called undocumented Workers. See how fast we solve the immigration problem.

By Disgusted

July 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

By all means, bring back the draft. But this time, let’s get rid of college deferments, exemptions for “pylondial cysts,” and other dodges used by the kids of rich people. I want Percival Periwinkle IV to be lined up buck-naked along with Bubba Pinecone in that room full of draftees undergoing medical examinations.

And then I want to see how these neocons regard the war, once their kids land in Delaware in steel coffins.

By harold

July 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Why use a draft? Why not ask for volunteers?

Anybody who really loves Jesus and America and their President would volunteer immediately!

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

The Washington Post just reported that the meeting held between the Senate Repubs and Dubya’s National Security liaison was bottomed-lined as: “Get the troops out of Iraq now!” Are these folks cut-and-run or are they non-patriotic? Neo-cons and conservatives have an explanation for this behavior by the Senate Repubs, don’t you?

By michelle

July 11, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

WE HAVE FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!! why is this so hard to accept???????? stubbornness is NO EXCUSE to continue this failed mission. jesus christ is there anyone out there who can be the bigger man and admit failure when it is plain as day?

By Adam

July 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat @2:22

You raise an interesting point. Everyone is weary of our situation in Iraq. As one who supported President Bush’s decision initially, I do not regret our move into Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush showed leadership by stating a case, gaining support from a reluctant Congress, and moving forward. I admire his tenacity and dogged pursuit of terrorism militarily, and through various covert means.

From a personal standpoint, I don’t know if I would necessarily describe my feelings as a shift as much as a frustration with a lack of fresh ideas and expression of where do we go from here? It’s clear we haven’t made as much progress as we would have liked in seeing Iraquis taking control of their destiny and playing a larger role in control of violence themselves. In light of that, a part of leadership must involve the President stepping up and promoting a modification of the plan and expressing it in terms of OUR interests not just interests of Iraq. The Surge may produce some reduction in the attacks, but I have to say I don’t see it as a long term resolution.

There is more than enough blame to go around when looking for alternatives. The Republicans in general haven’t done much more than voice support for the status quo. The Democrats didn’t present any alternatives during the last election other than withdrawal. Today, if they have a plan following the withdrawal they advocate I’m not aware of it. And I don’t the State Dept under Rice has accomplished and breakthroughs through diplomacy of cooperation with other Middle East powers.

If Republicans want to gain my support as a conservative, someone needs to step up with constructive ideas post-Bush. At the same time Democrats might give some thought as to what happens after withdrawal and their fixation on Bush Lied, Impeachment temper tantrum. This is a serious problem for our nation and their nah-nah-nah whining doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Jackie: The Senate voted 56-41 to cut off debate on an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that would have mandated that troops be granted home leave between deployments of at least as long as their previous combat tours. Already stretched National Guard and Reserve units would have been granted three-year breaks between assignments

Repuglicans, Supporting the troops all the way to their graves

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Have you noticed how quiet this blog has become. Those that have a severe case of diaharrea of the lip have found Imodium to cure their problem.

By melo

July 11, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

http://www.yahoo.com/s/624213

JUST GET OUT

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Would the neo-cons and so-called conservatives come out of hiding and explain to everyone how they support our troops.

They won’t because they can’t. Dusty, the most pro-Bush, pro-“War” person on this forum, when asked, can only give Fox news soundbites as to why she supports the “war”, not how she supports it. Wooten, our fearless demented blog leader, can only reference his bank account and stock options, oh and making comments about how Libby should stay free. JBMLAW, the forum’s Gomer Pyle, can only talk about the glory of victory through war. (Surprise, surprise, suprise!!); and RCH, the only one on here who’s man enough to take a punch, can only talk about how the conflict, can be won; never even mentioning the reality that in all the history of that region no outside modern force has ever won it.

The sad part is, they speak for the Republican Party who is even now withholding aid and rest from the troops they call themselves “supporting”, while on the other hand, they’re letting their cronies rob america blind, put us in quantum physics type debt, and kill our future. All for the allmighty dollar that they can get now to put into their coffers.

By @@

July 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Wow Jim, you’ve created a firestorm with today’s topic.

Being the child of a proud patriot and military father, he never let me read that memo the Democrats put out after Vietnam; the one that said “You, as an American, were born to accept defeat.”

After receiving that memo, he began voting Republican. Years later, when I could vote I voted Democrat.

Darn, Dad was right and I was wrong.

Dontcha just hate it when that happens?

I have since seen “their” evil…errr MY evil ways.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright A three year break in between assignments. Bad call.

By dawg_gone_truth

July 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Harold you need to stick to no cars on peachtree by 2012, which I wholly support. Don’t put down those who volunteer to serve in the Military, I reenlisted in Iraq, why? I don’t love war, I’m not blood hungry, I don’t think Bush is right, I’m not a right wing radical, I do it because I can do it and I can take care of the kids coming in and do my best to keep them alive. I do it so my kids don’t have to do it.

Personally, I’m not a fan or George W Liar, nor am I a fan of Bill Clinton, I’m an average American who thinks we can’t leave Iraq, and we can’t Stay. I have not heard a plan yet from any politician as what they propose we do to get out and preserve some sort of order in that country. Iraq will become a human rights nightmare when we leave and those people do not deserve that. Republican or Democrat, they are all the same, folks I hate to break this to you but its not a government by the people for the people, its a government by doctors and lawyers for their best interests, when was the last time a carpenter got elected to office? He can relate to most of us better than a doctor or lawyer.

By mark

July 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Why shouldn’t the Dems force an end to this fiasco before Bush’s presidency is over (which can’t come soon enough). W.’s plan is to sacrifice as many American and Iraqi lives as possible to keep this quagmire going until after the 2008 elections so he can leave it at the feet of the Dems that will undoubtedly come to power and have to deal with Georgie Porgie’s mess. Then Karl Rove will whip up a frenzy about how the Dems lost Iraq, when in fact it was lost the moment our dullard in chief decided to invade with no real plans other than “Jesus wants me to do it.” Well too bad, President r*tard. This is your mess. Go fix it. This isn’t one of your other messes like the companies you ran into the ground, the skipped national guard duty or the drunk driving arrests you can get your daddy to fix. People are dying for no other reason than that George W. Bush is an egomaniac and a witless puppet of Dick Chaney. Impeach them both if they won’t stop this war. Bush has already lied to the congress and the American people. Isn’t that crime enough?

You know what I like to do… I like to drive up next to the dwindling number of people who still have “W” stickers on their cars so I can see what kind of troglodytes still support this terrible president.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright A three year break in between assignments. Bad call.

RCH what do you suggest? I’ve been to Walter Reed, I’ve seen the wounded; both the mentally and physically wounded; I’ve seen the “love of god and country” fade from many a serviceman’s eyes, while awaiting services from an over worked staff.

Do we keep sending battered, weary, tired, exhausted, troops to Iraq as cannon fodder? Or can we at least let them rest up, get the psyche services they need, and MEND their wounds before we send them back?

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

By getalife

July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

I guess @@ is talking about the Pentagon Papers.

Gravel read it on the floor and thanks to his filibuster on the draft, he saved the cowardly chicken hawks from dying in Iraq.

The gop wasted lives in Iraq will live in infamy. They should all go to Iraq and serve in the embassy dodging morter rounds and attacks.

Pathetic.

By Ron B

July 11, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

For The Record says:[quote]The Iraqis are stuck with our failure for a very long time no matter what we do.[/quote]

F.T.R.:

By any chance do you have a list of FAILURES that the Muslims who are killing their own people and blowing up things in Iraq have tallied? For some reason you conclude that AMERICA is the cause of the suffering of the innocent Iraqi people BUT NOT the people who are killing people and destroying construction projects.

Let me ask you - Do you consider these people EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS to you or Savages? The way that you talk about them in 3rd party - I believe that you don’t think they can be held accountable for their actions in killing innocent Iraqi people.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright Did we not liberate Kuwait. Did we not win that war. Ask the Kuwaitis how it felt to live under Saddam.

You are also forgetting that at this time the established govts. of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon are also not aiding us. They feel that if the radical Muslims are embattled with us it will keep them at bay.We need to change that.

Again I charge you that I gave you all the resources Of the USA and gave you total control to win ,could you? Not would you,Could you?

By AmVet

July 11, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Wow! I just mention the d word and things really heat up here! Good. Its far past time to put all of the cards on the table about this matter.

The draft would undoubtedly rip this nation apart like almost nothing else could. But it goes to the disingenuousness (what a word!) of the right wing hawks to exclude it as a possibility of actually “winning” a “war”.

Lets just assume (I know, I know) for a moment that The Arithmetic Of Failure’s number are correct. And let’s also assume that I am a competent military strategist!

What does this mean?

Did this administration miscalculate the necessary troop strength by a such an enormous factor because, perhaps out of sheer arrogance, they simply disregarded the premise? Seems like someone in the Pentagon would have known this.

Or perhaps because they hoped beyond hope that it would work anyway? Remember the VP said “from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” and “The Iraqis will welcome us with open arms and greet us with flowers”. (These are direct quotes. I couldn’t make this stuff up!)

Or did they know that the mission could never be accomplished (apologies to the good people aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln) with such an undersized presence but knew once we were there, the next administration might well do their best LBJ imitation?

Either way, the results have been, to date and to put it mildly, disastrous. And this “strategy” as Sen. Hagel from Nebraska, a combat veteran, says, “represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Harriet Meyers to liberal senate scum … EFF OFF!!

Nice one Harriet, and perfectly proper too.

The cowardly treasonous wankpig liar Leahy whines and bleats about Bush playing politics. Yet what exactly is this new pointless obsessive leftist witch hunt all about - which is undeniably just as worthless and as moronic as the despicable Libby lynching - by rabidly partisan demoNcrat vermin if its NOT pure politics? … pure leftist hypocrisy!!

By Al

July 11, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Ron B.,

We’re, collectively, the commander-in-chief of our military’s commander-in-chief. The “Savages” don’t report to us.

And just so you know, your attempts to de-humanize don’t persuade. There’s a not-so-fine line between targeting innocent civilians and being indifferent to the capture/torture/deaths of innocents when targeting combatants. (Have your read the news lately?)

There’s also a strong argument to be made (in fact, is being made my military experts) that killing terrorists, and unintentionally killing civilians in the process, creates more than we kill.

Consider losing the simple-minded Faux News banter, get informed and think.

By jm

July 11, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

RCH- regarding the “liberation” of Kuwait, our services were bought and paid for by the Emir of Kuwait and the Saudi’s. Bush 41, in addition to troop commitments from other countries, lined up financial commitments as well.

By Really RCH

July 11, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

The Gulf War that liberated Kuwait had a specific mission. When the mission was accomplished we left. There was no reason to go to Baghdad even though many thought we should. George the First had more sense than George the Second. There was no planning for what would happen after Saddaam was gone and Cheney and Rumsfeld were way off on their expectations. Throwing more bodies at the problem is not going to resolve it. There has to be a change in course and it has to involve diplomacy.

By JoeD

July 11, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

556 days until this idiot president goes back to Crawford. Can’t come soon enough. Jim Wooten, does he have a cot reserved for you at the ranch?

By time for the truth

July 11, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

THIS IS FREAKING FUNNY - sadly nowhere near vicious enough - but it makes its somewhat biting points pretty well in a somewhat kuntry music style .

overall a superb p1ss take out of HiTllary Hog Klinton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8

ENJOY …

By Wha? Stands for What is Bush hiding?

July 11, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

So Bush has “ordered” his former WH counsel to “defy Congress” and refuse to comply with her subpoena.

Certainly, no one at the White House did anything wrong. To suggest that is just treasonous. So…. if no one at the White House did anything wrong, why not just answer the questions truthfully? I mean, they’re not HIDING anything, so why are they giving the [undoubtedly false] appearance that they are?

By JH

July 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

President George W. Bush, whose poll numbers are in danger of dropping to the levels of Congress, made another stab Tuesday…

Mr. Wooten, even for someone with a well-deserved and widespread reputation for saying some really ridiculous things, it is, or should be, apparent that comparing Bush’s unpopularity numbers to anything or anyone else’s is simply political spinning at its finest.

Our do-nothing, rubber stamp, until recently, GOP run Congress has been unpopular for ages. And rightfully so.

But this doozy: Democrats are desperate to get Iraq off the table before the next presidential election, when they might actually have to take responsibility for it. clearly shows a man who is himself desperate.

Desperate enough to constantly ignore the failings of an administration to the point that you are among the ever dwindling 25% or so who still refuse to see that it will never provide any satisfactory leadership for a nation that deserves so much more.

And so the next President and his staff will have to inherit a Republican cesspool of problems and a morally and fiscally bankrupt neo-conservative legacy.

You’ve done your share to help ensure that Jim.

By DebbieDoRight

July 11, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

So Bush has “ordered” his former WH counsel to “defy Congress” and refuse to comply with her subpoena.

Bush knows if she goes to jail he can always “pardon” her, (al la Scooter).

RCH: I’ll say it again for the 5555,999,222,550,222 time, WE CAN’T WIN!!! Whew! Did you “hear” me that time?!

By Captain Freedom

July 11, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Mr Wooten offers this truth: “Bush put himself in a box by agreeing to interim benchmarks for Iraqi government progress in several areas of political and economic change.”

It is of course absurd that Our Leader should be expected to justify his decisions with anything as mundane as “results” or “facts”. He knows in his guts that what he is doing is Right. The intense anger and reactive vigor with which he responds to any suggestion that he is wrong is proof enough that he is Right. His guts tell him so. Offering to set “benchmarks” or to meet “standards” only plays into the hands of the Islamofascistoliberals who hate America.

Our Leader is a genius and a visionary because he knows to trust his guts, like when they told him that he could see into Putin’s soul. His guts also churned out a strong message in the first minutes after the Twin Towers attacks.

They said, “Wow. I’m sitting here. Look at the kids. Fun book, something about a goat. Terrorists, huh? Seems I remember someone saying something about that a coupla months ago. Well, everything has changed now, and I’m the Leader, so as soon as I find out what happened to this funny little goat, I’m going to go lead or something. Hey look, a fly landed on my shoe. Boy, my guts feel funny. Now, about that goat.”

The rest is history, which will of course judge Our Leader to have been the absolute bestest goodalicious Leader that has ever been, no matter what the Islamocommuhomofascists try to tell me. In my guts, I know I’m Right.

By Wha? Stands for What is Bush hiding?

July 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Debbie, Bush won’t pardon Scooter just yet, as that would free him up to answer questions as if the original indictment, trial, and conviction had not occurred. For some reason, Bush doesn’t want anyone answering any darned questions. Cheney either! What’s up with that? I mean, they’re not HIDING anything…. right? Right? crickets chirping

By RCH

July 11, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

Debbiedoright So if I nuke every thing. Every city, town and village. I kill anything that moves. I unleash every known chemical and biological weapon known to man on the middle East. When I am through it looks like the moon. Nothing can live there for the next thousand years. Any country that I think even harbors a terrorist, I will do the same. And I can’t win?

By Captain Freedom

July 11, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

The Captain commends RCH for his cogent and clear recipe for Victory against the Islamofascists. A shiver of electricity ran up my spine as I contemplated the aftermath of your Perfect Plan.

At last, a man with the visionary courage to say what Right Thinkers and True Believers have been secretly praying for for years.

Yes, kill them all. Exterminate the brutes. Bomb them into the Middle Ages, and make the desert into a parking lot. Why has noone ever thought of this brilliant strategery before?

By Killin' Time

July 11, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

My guts tell me that…I mean…my gut tells me that Captain Freedom is yanking my chain.

Funny stuff, my balding brother.

By Jackie

July 11, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this

The Repubs can no longer use “cut-and-run.” The Dems can now use the term to describe the neo-cons as “to the rear march…” Do we hear a whimper of protest?

By RJ

July 11, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

RCH is a terrific example of why the neo-clowns have lost all credibility with most Americans.

By getalife

July 11, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

“Bush Skips Questions As White House Press Room Unveiling”

Talk about cut and run.

Coward.

Loser.

Geez.

By AmVet

July 11, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

RCH,

Interesting plan.

But I see one teeny, weeny problem with it. Unless, of course, you have already figured out a way to keep ALL of the radioactive, biological and chemical dust and other contaminants within the borders of the target country.

Thereby not adversely affecting anyone else on the planet.

I think a superior plan would be to firebomb all of the major cities in Iraq. For starters. Then move on to any and all of the other Islamofascist countries. You know, make it look like Dresden and Tokyo were having small barbecues.

That should lean them Mooslims a thing or two.

By RCH

July 11, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

My statement was made for this reason. All that is said is that we can’t win. Yes we can. Between the two extremes of doing nothing and the blog above lies the recipe for victory. I challenge you to find it.

By Wha? stands for RCH is tool

July 11, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this

Yes RCH, it really helps that you don’t see other human beings as human beings. No one’s life matters unless you say so, right? How nice for you. A—hole.

By jm

July 11, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this

I wonder which victory we are talking about here. The one about enforcing U.N. mandates (quite hillarious coming from conservatives), W.M.D’s in Iraq, regime change, Islamofascism, bringing democracy to the middle east, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here, the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians goes through Baghdad, yellowcake from Niger, Saddam secretly meeting with al queda or the fact that Saddam was in cahoots with the planners of 9/11.

By Dusty

July 12, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

Well…yawn…just read all the liberal sqawking at the close of yesterday. Liberals never saw a war they couldn’t retreat from. And they are mad as everything because we are not running away on this one. They can’t even define victory. But they surely do know every word about CUT-n-RUN.

Oh, by the way, send Captain Freedom over to the terrorist camp where he belongs. He is so entertaining. I thought they might enjoy his comic role of undercover agent.

As Jim Wooten said about our stalwart and tenacious president,”The course left for him is to fight for what he believes is right.That is exactly what our President will do and I support his efforts and our troops.

By Katharine

July 12, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

What is “premature withdrawal”? Is it like “premature ejaculation?” This taxpayer is tired of the president’s prostituting the US for war contractors and the automotive industry.

Withdrawing yesterday is premature. Withdrawing today would be mature.

By Katharine

July 12, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Debbie DoRight: Thank you for your common sense. As you may know, common sense is the sixth sense. Men, with their foreshortened Y chromosomes, were not gifted with common sense. That’s why the world is in so much trouble.

By Oldtimer 55

July 12, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Dusty, You are quick with the reps soundbites: cut and run, retreat, must win over there to keep from fighting them over here, I support the prez and the troops….yada yada yada…We all support the troops, but a portion of that support is to assure they are not placed in harms way needlessly, which is exactly what this regime (not an administration) has done. The troops have already accomplished their mission. They removed Saddam. What more can you ask of a soldier. The issue now is not cut n run, but when how do we define victory. This regime had no plan for winning the war at all. Just drive to Baghdad, find Saddam and wait for the grateful residents to shower us with gifts and kisses. Not a plan for successful nation building, which was truly the purpose of this war. After all, Al Qaeda attacked the US, not Iraq. By launching this war we have provided Al Qaeda the urban training ground they didn’t have prior to 9/11. So we have aided our enemy rather than defeat them. If you believe so strongly in this war and this prez, the Army wants you. If you are beyond the years of eligible service, please send your children. After all this is a war worth sacrificing your child for…Right?

By Harold

July 21, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this

I know, I know. Yes, it’s true, I hate this country and everything about it. What’s yours is ours, and what’s mine is mine. That’s what makes the Democratic Party so great.

By JB

July 21, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

The short sweet truth of the matter is that the Democrats are traitors and the Republicans are cowards.

With no courage, no backbone, and no vision of what direction our country needs to go other than their parties’ ‘talking points’, it’s no wonder the public looks upon this do nothing congress with disgust.

To bad the world can’t see us as we really are, a country of caring and compassionate people, and realize we are nothing like these dumba$$es in Washington that supposedly represent us.