"We've got the Dow at another record high. Not bad."-MN

Awesome! Bravo, President Bush!
:)

Gee, that's right. It finally went past the record high it was at the day Bush took office (and in only five-and-a-half years) -- if that isn't progress, I don't know what is!
Corrected for inflation, of course, it really isn't, but hey; keep with narrative.

Given that many many ARMS are coming due right about now, increases in mortgage applications most likely represent refinancing rather than a resurgent housing market.

Try again...

And ANOTHER lie by Salvelinus and the left. sigh

----------------------------

When President Bush took office in January 2001:

DOW was at 10.578.24
It had declined almost 10% from its high during the last year of the Clinton Presidency. As of today, the Dow Industrials stands 10.8% above when Bush took office. In spite of 9-11, Enron/Tyco/etc malfeasance.

NASDAQ was at 2757.91 when Bush took office, and had lost almost half of its value from the top of the Internet bubble, and was still in rapid retreat. By the end of March 2001, less than 6 weeks after Clinton left office, the bubble finally had lost most of its air and the Nasdaq stood at about 1820. Clearly nothing Bush did in less than 6 weeks caused that continued drop.

Today, we are at a level of 2246, almost 25% above the bubble burst bottom. (There was a later 9-11 bottom as well).

No sense starting a war with a country that will "die" soon.

Gee, had that only been applied to Iraq where it is now known that Hussein's regime was soon to fall anyway...

Then Bush would not have been responsible for killing an entire nation and many of its people.

Wade

Meanwhile...

Aide says Jefferson cooked up scheme
Assistant sentenced to 8 years in prison
Saturday, May 27, 2006
By Bill Walsh
Washington bureau

ALEXANDRIA, VA. -- A former aide to U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, said Friday that it was the congressman's idea to solicit bribes to promote a telecommunications deal in West Africa that began as a legitimate business venture.

"I've gone over it 10 million times in my head," Brett Pfeffer, 37, said at his sentencing in U.S. District Court. "I don't know why I didn't look him in the eye and say 'No.' "

**SNIP**

According to court records, Pfeffer served as the initial go-between for Jefferson in his dealings with a wealthy northern Virginia woman, Lori Mody, who ultimately agreed to invest money in a business deal in Nigeria. Mody would eventually become an FBI informant and tape her meetings with Jefferson, documents show.

Pfeffer, a legislative assistant to Jefferson from 1995 to 1998, was working at Mody's McLean, Va., investment firm in 2004 when Jefferson pitched a business opportunity. It involved Kentucky-based iGate Inc., which Jefferson was helping to launch its high-speed Internet technology and cable television service in West Africa.

Pfeffer proposed the deal to Mody, who ultimately sank $3.5 million into the venture. According to court records, Jefferson later told Pfeffer that to continue to push the deal, he wanted 5 percent to 7 percent of the new Nigerian company Mody set up and to have a member of his family put on the payroll for $2,500 to $5,000 per month. Prosecutors have estimated the value of the arrangement at between $400,000 and $1 million.

**SNIP**

Vernon Jackson, the CEO of iGate, has admitted paying more than $450,000 to a company controlled by Jefferson's family. He is scheduled to be sentenced in July.

I agree with you 100% Mark!

There is lots of more important news out there that is not getting covered because of this media obsession over Foley. For instance, 17 American soldiers have died in Iraq in the past 3 days, making these the dealiest 3 days for American forces in over a year. During the same time, hundreds more Iraqi civilians have been killed, as bombings and violence continue to escalate in the Iraqi civil war.

Iraq is perhaps the worst military and foreign policy blunder this nation has ever endured. Those who have profitted politically from warmongering (read: B - u - s - h) constantly compare the Iraq conflict to the struggle in WWII, a struggle for our very survival. And yet, there is nary a mention of this ongoing carnage and chaos because all the airtime and page space is dedicated to Page-gate.

So count your blessings, Mark. A single lewd molester of minors has managed to push the Iraqi civil war, Woodward's insightful reporting on an incompetent and dyfunctional adminstration, the NIE, etc, from the front pages. You Bush cultists should send Foley a check!

aaaaarron - What is your solution for Iraq?

Apparently "Salvelinus" has been stuck on an island and unaware of what has been going on for the past 6 years. Or he is a Nancy Polosi Democrat

Aaron:
How short your memory is... how long did Vietnam last? How many Americans died there? How many "innocent" Vietnamese died there?

How much, adjusted for inflation did that conflict cost us?

Are you that myiopic to ignore history in your hatred for Bush?

Also... how many of those "innocent Iraqis killed" did the United States Armed Forces kill?

OR... did these innocent civilians get killed by other Iraqi insurgents or foreign fighters. It's sort of disingeniuos to make it seem like WE killed these people.

How bad do you think the violence would have been if the Shiites actually revolted against Saddam for the freedom they have now?

Well Kahn, since you accuse us of being "America-haters", what do you think? "Stay the Course" of course.

Find a quote where I accuse you or anyone of that asswipe.

What is your plan for Iraq? How stupid are you people?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

What's wrong with "Stay the Course"?

Simple Kahn, they want to leave. Let the Iraqi's sink or swim on their own. They'll return all of our troops and then stop all of the "domestic spying." Then once everyone is back from overseas they'll cut the military budget and set-up more programs with the first responders to deal with the aftermath of the next attack.

Then we'll remove our support from Israel and then the nice "insurgants" will have no need to attack us anymore.

*Groans*

Don't let them describe OUR position and don't state theirs for them. They REFUSE to answer.

WVO, Aaaaaaaron.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

Yes wally, Vitenam was a horrible debacle - that is perhaps the *only* conflict which might compete with this one for the worst blunder by an American president.

However, I don't think Vietnam, for all of its long years and many war dead, resulted in quite the same hatred and distrust of the US in the rest of the world. Sure, Vietnam certainly didn't didn't help our image abroad, but it didn't completely decimate it as the Iraq war of choice has. At no time in our history has America been more reviled throughout the world. Anyone who travels outside of the country on a regular basis will attest to this. Its an incredible feat to have turned so much good-will towards America after 9/11 into so much hatred and distrust.

Nor did Vietnam involve the terrible erosion of American moral values that has happened during this war. Despite many atrocities of the Vietnam conflict, we didn't get the into the systematic and codified torture of adversaries. As McCain said, "We are Americans. We don't torture. We are superior to that." Well, that's all gone now. Nor did Vietnam involve the abandonment of the Geneva Conventions, as well as the scrapping of the writ of habeus corpus - the basic writ that is the founding tenet of our democracy.

Whatever else happens in Iraq militarily, we long ago lost the war for hearts and minds. Our image went up in flames with the images of Iraqis receiving electric shocks at Abu Ghraib.

When all is said and done, wally, I believe historians will look back on the Iraq debacle as perhaps the single most damaging event for American prestige, power, credibility, and moral authority in the world. It may in fact be viewed as initiating the final demise our our once great country.

So much wasted for little, and so much damage caused in return. So much incompetence, so much clueless indifference, so little understanding.

You all seem overly fond of conjuring glorious WWII imagery to cover for a shamelful, very non-glorious debacle. Well, why don't you try this WWII analogy: We have already been fighting in Iraq for as long as it took to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (you know, countries that actually did threaten our survival). Don't worry wally - in just a few more years, the Iraq quagmire will have endured as long as Vietnam.

Face it guys, Aaron and Willy only have complete hatred for the President; they have "NO solutions
or ideas just like their leftist ilk-Kerry, Pelosi
Reid, Killer Kennedy, etc. They just want to get out of Iraq, to watch it fall, and be able to put down the President further by saying-"It's all President Bush's fault".....To them, in their hatred, it is only about bashing Bush. They will NEVER say anything good that is happening (our economy, jobrates, homeownership, stock markets at an all time high(again) It is NEVER anything good for them from any GOP people. They need to find ways of 'pushing people out of office, smearing them, and lying as a way of life'. We are all disgusted with Foley-he should be the hell
out of office no question about it. But they won't be satisfied until they can 'implicate any and all in the Republican Administration and try to win further elections in this way'. By the way
the underhandedness runs throughout THEIR party,\
Killer Kennedy, Kerry The Fraud, Reid, Pelosi, and
those who can't win elections honestly (they have
dead people voting-slashing Rep's tires-wanting recounts in ONLY Dem areas) so they ALWAYS resort to dubious tactics....It's the Democrat Way.

Kaaaaaahn -

I already posted my plan. For your edification, I will repost it's 7 points here:

Plan for fighting terrorism:

1) Don't do the dumb thing by invading and occupying Iraq - instead stay and rebuild Afghanistan, and pursue the folks who attacked us on 9/11. Make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a harbor for terrorism...

ooops, too late!! So I guess we have to proceed with step 2:

2) Leave Iraq. Tell the Iraqis that we will no longer be militarily involved in the internal conflicts of Iraq by such and such date. Will this be ugly? Absolutely. Thousands will likely die, and chaos will ensue. However, thousands are already dying (to the tune of 100 Iraqi civilians per day), and the situation is already chaotic - indeed there is a civil war. And much of that is due to the presence of a foreign occupation. Leaving would remove the US as a visible irritant in the area, thus undercutting recruitment to violent groups who use the rallying cry of "fight the US occupation".

3) Cut off all funding to US contractors like Halliburton, and instead work directly to build and fund *Iraqi* development organizations. Funding to US contractors has proven to be nothing but an opportunity for gross corruption, which has done as much to stymie our efforts to rebuild Iraq as the insurgency.

4) Redirect the billions per month in money mispent on occupying Iraq to instead developing and securing Afghanistan. Like Iraq, this should also be done directly with local non-governmental development and aid organizations, and not with US war profiteers.

Afghanistan has been slipping back into Taliban hands - we must not allow this. To that end, the US must redeploy our forces to secure the border area with Pakistan over which al-qaeda and their Taliban allies are currently operating with impugnity. We never committed the troops and resources we needed to secure and rebuild Afghanistan - indeed, we are withdrawing from Afghanistan at a time when the regime that harbored the terrorists who attacked us are making a big come-back (curiously, the Republicans don't call this "cutting and running"!).

For a fraction of the billions per month we are spending in Iraq, the US could completely turn impoverished war-torn Afghanistan around, making it that shining example of US good-will that we all hoped it would become. Instead, we chose to flush billions a month down the toilet on militray operations in Iraq, while leaving Afghanistan a mound of rubble.

5) Get tough on Musharraf and other elements of the Pakistani armed forces to pursue al-qaeda and crack down on religious schools that train children to hate the US. The leaders of the group who attacked us on 9/11 are most likely holed up in Pakistan - indeed, the Paki military recently signed a truce with them! So lets see... 1) Pakistan is harboring al-qaeda and Osama, 2) is a festering nest of anti_americanism, 3) is a military dictatorship, 4) possesses weapons of mass destruction, inlcuding nukes, and 5) has given nuke secrets and missile technology to N Korea. Why is Bush having this guy over to the White House for fun and games? Musharraf instead needs to be held accountable, and needs to set a timetable for elections... in return, the US should promise to assist Pakistan in providing a secular educational alternative to the Islamic Madrassas indoctrinating hatred for the US.

6) Work with Iran! I am sure you think this is crazy, but it makes all the sense in the world. The Iranians have much influence over what happens in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They also are threatening to develop nukes. However, contrary to how they are portrayed in the US media, they are not a bunch of lunatics.

Ahmadinejad is not the most savory character, I'll admit - we would all prefer a diffent leader. However, you have to work with what you got, and he is not beyond reason nor is Iran beyond establishing better relations with. Remember this: although the USSR possessed nukes and threatened our very survival for decades, Reagan worked with the Soviet Union and became very close to Gorbachev. Despite his tough talk, Reagan and Gorby achieved impressive accords (much to the dismay of the neo-cons on both sides). Reagan understood that you could work with supposedly "evil" adversaries. He also understood that working closely with them undermines their more radical tendencies - indeed, in the long run it undermines their very regime. We need to be more engaged with Iran - it would both help our position in the middle east (and boy could we use it!), and forment political moderation within Iran. It also may be the best, least costly way of moving Iran away from the road to nuclear weapons. Time to re-establish diplomatic relations with our adversay - if we could do it with Vietnam, we can certainly be more active pursuing relations with Iran than we have been. And unlike in Pakistan and many other countries in the region, the Iranian people are not rabidly anti-American.

7) More aggressively seek a lasting peace in Palestine/Israel. This will mean getting tougher with our allies the Israelis, and biting the bullet and working with Hamas. The miserable conditions under which the majority of Palestinians live is one of the root causes for turmoil and terrorism in the middle east (along with teh miserable conditions brought on by our invasion of Iraq, and the conditions we have ignored in Afghanistan).

A comprehensive settlement has proven frustratingly difficult, but currently we are hardly even trying for one! A peaceful, secure homeland for both the Palestinians and the Israelis would do wonders for peace and stability in the region - far more than we could possibly hope to achieve by occupying Iraq for 100 years! And the US being seen as helping to achieve a plan that relieves Palestinian suffering would do more to undercut terrorism against the US than any military actions could ever achieve.

So that's my 7 point plan. Will it stop all terrorism? No, of course not. Will it be "foolproof"? A long way from it. You can find plenty to criticize in my plan, but I believe that an approach similar to what I've outlined above would be damn sure better than what we've got going on now. The game "plan" we have now in the middle east (to the extent that it constitutes a "plan" at all) is only contributing to untold suffering, increased hatred for the US, the weakening of US power and prestige, and the squandering of our moral authority - all the while increasing the attractiveness of terrorism in the region. It is a recipe for perpetual war.

Happy now, Kaaaaaaaaaahn??

First of all... while the DOW being at a record high is a good thing... someone who actually knows how the market works can't fully credit Bush and his divine tax cuts for the rise. To do so is simply wrong and does not take into account the full scope of things that go into the speculations and deals involved in the rise of stock prices. For those of you who will spring to oppose me and say that Bush is the main cause... you have some studying to do.

About the courts... personally, I don't think that the program is necessary, and the wiretapping should be done with a court order so there is a) a paper trail and b) verification of probable cause. However, it is the court's decision, and I will respect it.

Mark... why wouldn't the Media focus on the Foley thing? Its a person who was trusted by his electors to protect the interests of their children (via the caucus that he helped found). He violated that trust and engaged in inappropriate sexual conversation with minor boys... do you mean to contend that that isn't important?

*Chuckles*

Oh I can't wait to see what happens next.

Thank you aaaaaron for a well written piece of liberal dribble.

Thousands will die. But, OK! Everyone knows that deaths of non-Americans don't count.

Haliburton is bad. No more money for Haliburton! Great. Too bad you have no idea what services they provide and how good thay are at it. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

And get tough with NUCLEAR Pakistan! AND - secure the border of landlocked Afghanistan? You've been watching Charmed too much.

Thanks though for being honest. Now one more question.... are these views the same as the Democrat Party? Honestly now, if Democrats gain control of the House and Senate - are THESE the actions THEY will take?

If yes; Thanks for telling us because they have not said so.

If no; Then why support them?

Oh - and WVO we still haven't heard YOUR plan. Come on, step up.

Georgia,

Wirtapping - that word is a misnomer. The NSA is scanning communications in problem areas constantly. The enemy changes numbers and e-mail addresses constantly. When we stumble on a set of good addresses they must be exploited immediately or they become useless as the enemy changes them rather quickly.

Turns out the e-mail and IM's ABC published were from ex-pages, yes. But one is 21 and the other is 18. So all ABC really did was out a gay Republican. But outing a Republican is completely acceptable behavior in liberal circles. Much as torpedoing passenger liners was to German submarines. War is war and those filthy nasty Republicans deserve whatever they get.

OK - so that was a little flippant. Foley is a pig. But the thing about what ABC actually published is true.

Kahn-

I don't think that it is unreasonable for there to be a court to oversee this program to verify probable cause in situations in which the commiques of an American citizen are monitored by the government. A paper trail would be nice as well.

For all of the right's grandstanding about the difference between "signals intelligence" and "wiretapping", I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why it is unreasonable to have a court or similar judiciary body verify the probable cause used to justify this "gathering of intelligence" of private American citizens... Could someone please enlighten me as to a reason why this is unreasonable?

Kahn, I and several others have submitted ideas several times, last time I did was two weeks ago I believe. The only thing we encounter is ridicule, just like you just did with Aarontime's post. Nice way of debating, very productive.

First the Neocons in the WH, most importantly Rumsfeld, need to step down. Any plan needs to be executed by a competent administration. This administration has proven to be highly incompetent. I wouldn't even trust them running a Daycare Center for Children.

Second, acknowledge that Iraq is lost. Iraq is already engaged in a civil war. The presence of the US in Iraq is acting as a red flag on a bull. Illusions that the US will be able to turn this around are ridiculous. The only motive I can detect for staying is "saving face". American blood is being spilled because you can't handle the humiliation.

Once these two things are acknowleged, we can discuss further actions

I almost shed a tear when I saw the concern for the Iraqi people from the caring folks on the left. One can only wonder if they even knew where Iraq was before 2003.

And poor Halliburton has to ride the waves and troughs of liberal popularity:

No bid contracts in Kosovo under Clinton = Good

No bid contracts in Iraq under Bush = Bad

Kaaaaaahn -

you screamed for a plan, so I gave you one.

Plenty to criticize, sure. But you understand that there are no good outcomes to be had from the Iraq quagmire - right? To think otherwise is beyond naive. At this point, it is a question of chosing the least bad of the available options. Any decision we make there will involve thousands dying. It is my opinion, from my conversations with Iraqis, that the continued US presence in Iraq will result in more civilian deaths there than if we soon leave. Once we leave, at least Iraqis will be able to decisively distinguish between those who are fighting against a percieved foreign occupation from those who are merely using the fight against Americans to further their own criminal agendas.

You further write: "Honestly now, if Democrats gain control of the House and Senate - are THESE the actions THEY will take?...If no; Then why support them?"

In response, I will say that whatever is eventually proposed - by either side - it has got to be better than the obviously failed "stay the course" idiocy advocated by the incompetent Bushicons. Falsely upbeat fantasies are no substitute for an actual plan. Nor does "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up" constitute a plan. The time has long passed for empty headed platitudes, WWII analogies, and all the rest of the Bull Shiznitz offered up by a WH in perpetual campaign mode.

And the problem with this war is not that it hasn't been marketed properly. Enlisting Madison Avenue consultants is no substitute for a plan. If the Bushies had spent half as much time actually listening to regional and military experts as they have trying to market this sorry campaign to the American people, we'd never have gotten to this point of "no good options".

So I ask you, Kaaaaahn, knowing what we know now about Bush's failure and uninterested lack of planning, why would you vote for the Republicons?

Hey - we've had this long discussion without once mentioning Foley!

The actions of this congressman immediately following being questioned by ABC definately imply that he was doing something illegal. However I am perfectly willing to let the DOJ do its thing before I get too attached to a judgement.

Whoa, I havent seen this much armchair generaling since Johnson curtailed the highly effective after-action attacks in the wake of Tet.

I guess I dont understand the countervailing concerns between the welfare of the Iraqi people and the desire to run like hell and leave them to the tide.

I too have anecdotal tales to tell, not only of "Iraqis that I talk to" but also of family serving duty in this war. Im certain that everyone will agree that such compelling evidence is absolute proof that MY opinion is iron-clad and not subject to review. The anonymous "guy that I know who said..." always works to stem any opposing viewpoint.

When relevant talking points include such boiler-plate nuggets as "Bushicons" and "quagmire", one has to wonder about the strength of the argument.

Anyhoo, I should say that as long as we are pulling troops from Iraq, perhaps they should be pulled from that other muslim country which we occupy. You know, the one which was no threat to America but was attacked unilaterally without U.N. sanction by a coalition of the willing, and which is currently being rebuilt by companies such as Halliburton who are working under no-bid contracts. (WHoooo, almost ran out of breath on that one).

Frawg, with respect to the DOW, I generally agree. Presidents in general get too much credit, as well as too much blame, for the economy in general, and especially the stock market. They are able to influence it, however. And think it's possible to suggest that the decision during the Clinton administration to "publicize" or "democratize" the internet eventually led to the "technology bubble". But I wouldn't exactly call it his fault any more than "Black Monday" was Reagan's fault. The S&L fiasco, well... you be the judge. But in each and every one of those instances I think you could make the case that people found rationalizations and loop-holes that started firestorms. And if you think Bush is immune, think real estate.

And just so you know, if you have financed any real estate on any kind of creative basis (like an ARM), my advice is to get the hell out -- NOW!

Regarding the courts, I think the eavesdropping programs (and I "suspect" there are more of them than we know), I believe they are essential. The problem, as I see it, is there is not sufficient oversight. It would be nice if Bush was more accommodating in that regard, but he isn't. And congress hasn't forced his hand. So who's fault is that? Only the courts have had the cajones to stand up to him.

Regarding the Foley thing, I'm not inclined to say too much because the situation is still evolving. But I think the two things that bother me most are these:

(1) the fact that the guy (Foley) engaged in the activities he did at the same time he propped himself up as a crusader against those same activities. It's that fundamental hypocrisy that makes this issue so serious. It's not just about Foley being an alcoholic. I would say that aspect is least important. It's not just about him being gay either (although I'm sure that many people have issues on that level alone). It's not even just about him hitting on adolescents, regardless of sex, although to me, that alone is sufficiently reprehensible to justify his removal from public office, although I appreciate not everyone agrees with that either. But it's a big deal to me. I mean my God, most of these kids are on their own for the very first time in their lives, in our nation's capitol, supposedly learning about how our government works, and to think they're predated upon by congressmen?? If that happened to my kid I'd want the person skinned and flayed. But even after all that is said, then in the case of Foley we have to add the fact that he's the worst kind of hypocrite. And THAT makes me very ill, and very angry.

(2) the dissembling of everyone else involved. Various people have claimed that they knew something and passed the information on... or maybe they didn't... or maybe they did. And those up the line claimed they didn't get the message... or maybe they did... or maybe they didn't. It just goes on and on. Everyone's passing the buck. I am thoroughly disgusted. And it disgusts me further when someone comes out and blames the freakin' VICTIMS! Matt Drudge comes to mind. He to me, now, is personna non grata. Likewise anyone else that attempts to spin this into something less, or other, than what it is. Watching all these congresscritters scrambling for cover is a horrible sight, and I am thoroughly disgusted. And I mean thoroughly disgusted.

That wasn't too much, was it? lol!

May I opine? If hypocrites were to be exiled from public office, there would be tumbleweeds and cobwebs in every government building.

Partisan hacking by either side is hypocritical, considering the known skeletons that inhabit so many official closets.

There are plenty of names we could throw into the ring while questioning the morality and professional ethics of the people we have elected, the issue of Foley should be one of mutual disgust and let it end there. While youre busy kicking someone else's butt, your own rear-end becomes dangerously exposed.

The stock market, gotta love it! Now if you could just explain to the left the benefits of cutting the capital gains tax, they might actually support a strong national economy.

Remember, whats bad for the country is good for the democrats. How do you expect them to play the victim card when there arent enough victims to go around?

Aarontime...you said a molestor of minors...are you guys trained to lie or just born with it?

Please provide ONE piece of evidence that a minor was molested.

Thanks

DIW: "There are plenty of names we could throw into the ring while questioning the morality and professional ethics of the people we have elected, the issue of Foley should be one of mutual disgust and let it end there. While youre busy kicking someone else's butt, your own rear-end becomes dangerously exposed."

If you really think that way, I can only guess you don't have kids.

By the way, DIW, I didn't understand this comment at all: "Anyhoo, I should say that as long as we are pulling troops from Iraq, perhaps they should be pulled from that other muslim country which we occupy. You know, the one which was no threat to America but was attacked unilaterally without U.N. sanction by a coalition of the willing, and which is currently being rebuilt by companies such as Halliburton who are working under no-bid contracts. (WHoooo, almost ran out of breath on that one).

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't have a clue what you mean.

Warriornation: "Please provide ONE piece of evidence that a minor was molested."

Ironically, (at least on the basis of what we know so far) that determination may very well hinge on the interpretation of the very law Foley helped to establish. Apart from that, do you see any distinction between a legal wrong and a moral wrong? Do you have kids, Warrior?

Aaaaaaron and WVO - You Assume too much. First, let me point out that one of you say the war isn't being "marketed" correctly and the other says all is lost. You both agree however that we should pull out. One says immediately and the other says pick a date.

OK - so you are typical of what we hear from the Democrats. Your messages are close but not exactly the same. But, few Democrats are calling for immediate withdrawal. Some say a timed withdrawal. Honestly, I don't know what the message is because it is so muddled. I don’t know what the Democrats will/would do if they gain control next month. I fear you would both be disappointed (much as we have been with some of the crap that the Republican Congress have pulled).

In my opinion (which you both responded to before I posted it), there are three distinct parts of Iraq that require three distinct solutions.

The north is largely autonomous now. The Kurds have the situation under control, think we’re great and would just the same be their own country. They have oil, and could swing it economically. Turkey wouldn’t like that and neither would Iran.

The South is pretty stable. It’s almost all Shiite and they have oil. There are some differences between some militias, but mostly things are good. They would also like to be their own country. But, because of the very strong influence of Iran we wouldn’t like that and neither would lots of other people.

The leaves the Central and western parts if Iraq – Sunni-land. It’s full of a mix of hateful people who used to be in power and foreign fighters who just wanna get in on the infidel killing. Actually, they want a civil war. They do NOT want to be their own country because they don’t have oil. They want to seize control back from the Kurds and Shiite. There are other subplots and minor turf wars going on also, but I think these are the main facts.

Two thirds of the “quagmire” is stable. One third, the third that contains the group that used to rule is not. There has been talk amending the constitution to a more federal form. The Kurds and Shiites want that and the Sunni’s don’t (again – no oil). I like the idea.

I DO NOT think we should “stay the course”. I do not think we should tackle one problem area at a time. I think we should double or even triple our presence there. We should seal the border with Iran and the one with Syria.

We should attack all the cities in Sunni-land at the same time (similar to Fallujah but all at once). Go house to house and clean it up. Anyone found with bomb making materials should be summarily executed. Every adult in the house. We should clean up Baghdad as part of this. It is more mixed than the west and has as many problem Shiite as Sunni. We should not shrink from using overwhelming force. Next time Sader hides in a mosque – it should be pulverized (we’ve done it before – in wares we wanted to actually win).

We should build up the independence of all three areas – but give preferential treatment to the areas most friendly. That would be in order – the north, the south, and the central/west. We should arm the Kurds with advanced technology including tanks and helicopters to the point they could stand alone – or take over the country if need be.

And…. Well you see where I’m going with this. I believe that we/ Bush / Rumsfeld however you want to say it tried to do this on-the-cheap, which has ended up making it cost much more. I believe that this was because they sensed poor support from the liberals (whether justified or not) and thought this was all they could get away with. I believe they needed to think about conquest (with later release) rather than “liberation”.

But, sadly I don’t believe we will do any of this. I also don’t believe you will get your wishes either. With only a slim majority in Congress (if you win) and the realization of how awful the solutions you both propose are, you will not see it happen either. It will be a “stay the course” with maybe a slow (very slow) withdrawal. And it will be a festering mess for decades because of it. The Kurds will break away – but be crushed by Turkey and Iran. The Shiites will make the south part of Iran and make Iran even more powerful. And the Sunni Iraqis will become the Palestinians of the Gulf. No money and no contentment. That will be the liberal legacy – though you’ll blame us.

I have two kids Rico.

Don't get me wrong, I want Foley's balls cut off. I keep hearing about pedophile (which is someone that covets pre-buescite kids) and molesting and sex.

So far all of those attacks from the left are completely wrong...that may change, but the evidence so far not one shred of evidence suggests someone below age of consent (age 16 in D.C.), no touching (thus no molestation) and no sex were had.

Thus the irony.

This is the same group (the hypocritical left) that told us that Oral Sex isn't really sex under Clinton but now believe that Instant Messages is tantamount to not only sex but molestation and pedophilia.

Can someone please make sense of the left's interpretations of these two for me?

WORST OCTOBER SURPRISE EVER

Warrior - funny that we can't wire tap Al-Queada but the Speaker of the House was supposed to wire tap a Congressman for being gay. The e-mail string and IM string published by ABC were to an 18 year old and a 21 year old. Adults.

I find it funny Kahn that these libs apparently are anti-Gay now as well. Talk about doing anything to get power.

Read that Worst October Surprise article...it's classic. These lines are the best:

So in the end, what do we end up with?

* A pedophile that wasn’t.

* A child that was actually an adult.

* The disclosure of personal electronic communications of a highly personal nature between two consenting adults revealed.

* A sex scandal between a couple who never had sex.

* That Democrat Congressmen can have sex with 17 year olds and get re-elected, but Republicans that talk about sex are forced to resign.

* ABC news is made to look like a fool, hyping a story beyond the facts at hand.

Ironic definition of pedophile considering Aarontime's moronic statements.

Oh the irony
--------

pedophile

noun

from Greek, meaning a love of children

An adult or adolescent who is attracted to children, or an adult who is attracted to adolescents or children. Often confused by ignorant people with the word "child molester", although it is very simple to understand. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and is not a disease. Pedophiles do not talk about their sexual orientation due to being oppressed by our ignorant and prejudiced members of society.

Pedophilia (noun) is not a black and white issue, and not all pedophiles are evil. Pedophiles (adult or adolescent) are prone to depression and suicide because they cannot act on their urges , yet cannot get help because society will ridicule them if they come out out it.

The term pedosexual means the same thing as pedophilia. The term is used to stress the fact that most pedophiles are not child molesters, but merely attracted to children. Contrary to popular and prejudiced belief, the word pedosexual is not a misnomer as suggested by many.

Whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation or mental disorder is still in debate, like how homosexuality was considered a disease a few decades ago.

Most pedophiles are certainly not child molesters and certainly are not evil. It is merely a social delusion based on prejudice and primal human instinct.

Anyhoo... all kinds of things happened in Iraq this week. For example, the concensus opinion is that Operation Together Forward in Baghdad has been a bust. PM Maliki has relieved from command one of his best generals after said general (in command of the most effective divisions in the Iraqi army) called upon Maliki to get serious with the militia problem. That (Maliki firing the general) pissed off the US command.

A few days ago Amb Khalilzad indicated that the situation in Iraq has to be addressed within the next couple of months. Within days of that announcement he indicated a new coalition of Shia and Sunni leaders committed to try to deal with the situation in Baghdad, at least during Ramadan. That is one of the most hopeful things I have heard in quite a while. Unfortunately, soon thereafter (like, within hours) it was announced that said coalition may not be able to come to terms (the possibility isn't yet hopeless though). Around about the same time Maliki (under pressure from the "true" (i.e., US) coalition force announced that an entire platoon of the police force in Baghdad, numbering 600-700 troops, has been "deactivated". Why? Because they are so thoroughly infiltrated by militias. Even Gen. Caldwell (we all remember him, right?) said today that if they could salvage maybe 30% of the troops, that would be fine.

Then Michael Ware (a CNN correspondent who has been labeled in the past as a moonbat, but whose opinions have turned out to be right far more often than not) comes on line to indicate that the militias have not only infiltrated the security forces, but have become institutionalized -- i.e., under the influence of whatever political faction in ascendance in whatever particular place.

It's been a hell of a week.

Ricorun,

Yes, it would be, if you pay close attention to moonbat blogs and CNN...

Warrior,

And if we are able to discover which senior Democrats coordinated this whole thing, then the blowback will be awesome...that'll be hard to do with only a month until election, day, but I know its being worked on.

Wow... none of you guys were able to tell me why Judicial oversight would be unreasonable... your silence speaks volumes...

Georgia - we tried. We've explaine it before - since you've been posting here. We're sorry you have that attention deficit thing going on.

The NSA has a whole bunch of listening stations. They point their attenas at Afghanistan, pakistan, Iran, fill-in-the-blank-an. They have two or three things to work with. Known enemy phone numbers, e-mail addresses and MAC addresses, suspected enemy phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and MAC addresses, and very sphisticated filtering software.

This software searches for entered key words in voice and text in multiple languages. They are listening to EVERYTHING coming out of those countries. Our enemy is constantly changing phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Warrants are tied to..... phone numbers and e-mail addresses. So - they listen. When a suspected or known bad guy contacts someone here - they must capture that immediately. Both sides of the conversation may be on different phones or e-mails the next time they communicate. You capture it then - or not at all. And, when certain key words and phrases are used - even from numbers you previously didn't suspect you capture them also. Again - same reasons.

Imagine if the NSA overheard the phrase "the truck bomb will go off outside the capital at 10:00 AM tomorrow", but because they had no "probable cause" to listen in the converstaion outside the contents of the conversation itself (a circular argument) they could nothing about it. This is EXACTLY the scenario the Democrats are forcing. They want to treat enemy combatants - soldiers if you will like criminals.

Here is the way I think of it: If an enemy tank division was in southern Florida communicating by radio with American spys in Georgia - the Democrats would force a warrant procedure rather than a military procedure.

Kahn-

A.) one could change the law in order to tie a warrant to an indivudual instead of a phone number or email address, your argument pertaining to changing phone numbers is mute.

B.) retroactive warrants are perfectly applicable in the situation you described. Also, being contacted by a known terrorist and not alerting the authorities, is already a crime... so probable cause would exist in that situation merely due to the fact that the NSA would have already witnessed this person committing a crime.

C.) About your "tank" dilemma... radio frequencies are open channels, and in a situation where enemy tanks had already invaded US territory, I would hope that the military would be scanning those channels... not to mention that enemy tanks in Florida wouldn't be tolerated by the military for very long...

Don't you see how it is problematic to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of private citizens without oversight? With no paper trail and no verification of probable cause, how can I, John Q citizen, be assured that the NSA isn't misusing this power? Should I just "trust" them?

Mark: "Yes, it would be, if you pay close attention to moonbat blogs and CNN..."

Actually, I listened to an interview (on NPR) with Khalilzad in which he acknowledged that Operation Together Forward has failed. And that was why he and Malike were trying to get the Sunni and Shia leaders to get together to talk. Fox News was the source of the report that indicated they were having trouble coming to terms.

The statements about the Iraqi general (Bashar Ayoub) were from an interview with the general I heard on NPR. The piece ends with this: American officials say General Bashar was simply too much of a threat to the government-backed militias.

The statements from Gen. Caldwell are all over the place, but I believe the one I read was also on the FoxNews website.

I realize that some consider NPR too liberal a source, but what I have cited are interviews with the people indicated. So if there's spin involved, it's from the individuals themselves.

Georgia. I don't believe that you can get a wire tap warrant based on the information you got from the wire tap. Thats the circular argument thing I mentioned.

And - how many troops need to be in th United States before we treat it as an invasion? A division? A regiment? A battalion? A company? How about 10 hijackers? (that would be about a squad.) Or how about two people with nuclear weapons? It's not so easy to define.

truth is, it's these subleties that you DON'T get and thats what will kill us.

"Some" consider NPR liberal....what a riot.

Didn't you read the Washington Post the other day

Frawg,

Your arguments have been driven over so many times there’s nothing left. Do you not understand the answers or do you just want to get the last line in?

“A.) one could change the law in order to tie a warrant to an indivudual instead of a phone number or email address, your argument pertaining to changing phone numbers is mute.”

First we’d have to make the change in the law, something that would take time and most likely involve a number of unintended “what if’s” to be dealt with (many after the fact). Second, how are we supposed to know what individual is sending the email or using the phone? That’s like asking a blind person what color is that car? They can’t see the person sending the email and therefore wouldn’t have the ability to get the warrant you want for that individual, would they?

“B.) retroactive warrants are perfectly applicable in the situation you described. Also, being contacted by a known terrorist and not alerting the authorities, is already a crime... so probable cause would exist in that situation merely due to the fact that the NSA would have already witnessed this person committing a crime.”

Sometimes retroactive warrants are perfectly applicable and are used when applicable. Often times they’re NOT applicable. Several people have gone over this in detail in more than one post.

“Don't you see how it is problematic to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of private citizens without oversight? With no paper trail and no verification of probable cause, how can I, John Q citizen, be assured that the NSA isn't misusing this power? Should I just "trust" them?”

No oversight? You keep pushing that agenda but again it has been noted here many times that there are numerous oversights in place.

A.) The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) from both parties,
B.) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) also from both parties,
C.) The National Security Council (NSC),
D.) The Department of Defense (DoD),
E.) The Department of Justice,
F.) The President's Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB).
Just to name a few.
National Security Agency / Central Security Service

Warrior, for starters the Kurtz quote wasn't in WaPo. But that's a minor point. Also minor is the point that I couldn't find the transcript in which Kurtz delivered his quote. All I could find were references to in right wing blogs that said he said what he said, and provided no context at all.

But like I said those are minor points. The fact of the matter is that I listen to NPR AND Fox News, as well as a variety of other sources. I visit various blogs, both left and right. And I do so in order to avoid falling into the trap that Kurtz mentioned in that article you cited: "people like hearing opinions that reinforce their own." And I said "some people consider NPR liberal" because, believe it or not, some people don't.

So how do you feel about Fox News? Your reference said Kurtz said Fox News was a conservative outlet. Do you agree on that score? If you do, you might notice that I referenced Fox News in my post, too. Likewise, you might notice that in the case of NPR I cited interviews. I didn't rely on what they said people said, I heard it directly from their mouths. You understand the difference, right?

I also noticed that Khan has opinions on the Iraq war that don't coincide with Bush's approach. And it's not just him, many people who identify themselves as "conservative" in one sense or another, or at least members of the GOP have different opinions. Then he goes on to call the Dem stand "muddled" because not all of them are on the same page. Well, neither is everyone in the GOP. Does that mean the GOP message is "muddled" as well? If not, how is it different?

This article in the LA Times about Fox News I think captures it pretty well for me. It's from yesterday's LA Times

---------------

ox News: Enraging Liberals for 10 Years

Cable news ratings king celebrates its first decade, as the left tries to muzzle Murdoch's creation.

By Brian C. Anderson
BRIAN C. ANDERSON is senior editor of City Journal and author of "South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias."

October 4, 2006

FOX NEWS turns 10 this week, and it has every reason to celebrate. Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias elsewhere in the media, Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it sometimes draws a fatter audience share than all its competitors combined, though viewership has slumped a little of late. Pugnacious Bill O'Reilly and conservative tough guy Sean Hannity have become two of the nation's most powerful broadcasters thanks to this kind of ratings pull. Fox is the news media success story of the last decade.

Liberals aren't celebrating the channel's birthday, though. Even before an angry Bill Clinton exploded at "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace a couple of weeks ago, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after getting pressed about his record on fighting Al Qaeda, Democratic pols and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, accusing it of being a Republican propaganda mill. Al Gore has likened Fox to a right-wing "fifth column." Leftist groups, including MoveOn.org, funded the documentary "Outfoxed," which purports to expose the channel's nefarious Republican agenda, and petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban Fox's use of its famous "Fair and Balanced" slogan as deceptive advertising.

"When a news outlet is allowed to blur the lines between opinion and journalism and call it 'fair and balanced,' I think it's confusing to consumers of information in this country, and it's dangerous to democracy," fretted an official at Common Cause, one of the organizations joining the petition. Hollywood celebrities never miss an opportunity to bash "Faux News." Comedy Central's witty "Colbert Report" is a nightly satire of the channel and of O'Reilly in particular.

What explains all this hysteria? Success, of course.

The propaganda charge is unfair, at least when it comes to the network's presentation of news. In the 2004 presidential race, Fox pollsters consistently underestimated President Bush's support. In its final preelection poll, Fox had Kerry winning by a couple of points, one of the only polls to show the Democrat on top. I'm not sure a right-wing fifth column would do that.

A recent comprehensive study by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found Brit Hume's "Special Report" — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which leaned left.

The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the network's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, noisily opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest star, O'Reilly, is no mainstream Republican. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for squashing the little guy. And who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly zeroes in on lurid murder mysteries and scandals.

Liberals troop into and out of the Fox studios every day — some of them, like host Alan Colmes and news analyst Marvin Kalb, affiliated with the channel. There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is more conservative than CBS or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission.

Fox's real ethos is not Republican but anti-elitist — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter."

This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of "militant" to refer to … well, terrorists. Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism: Christians, far from being seen as lunatics or curiosities — as too often is the case in the mainstream media — actually get some respect.

"We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, Dr. James Dobson and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Hannity told me a while back. "Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?"

What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown.

Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the United Nations' oil-for-food initiative in Iraq, initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox.

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives.

Nothing would please liberals more than to drag the nation back to the days when the New York Times and CBS News determined what was newsworthy. A group of congressional Democrats has warned Fox to end its supposed anti-Democratic bias — or else. Should Democrats retake Congress, an effort to shut down, or at least muzzle, Fox, is far from inconceivable, creepy and illiberal as that sounds.

Something Fox News doubtless is keeping in mind as it pops the champagne corks this week.

Warrior, it seems to me that the Times article confirms what I said -- that Fox News provides a different perspective. I'm definitely in favor of looking at things from different perspectives. How about you?

You see, when you listen to different points of view, often accompanied by different facts and information, it broadens your understanding and helps you to avoid the rut of just believing only those opinions with which you agree.

If the different sources are all honest, all of them deal with the same body of facts. They will, however, stress some facts over others, sometimes to the point where some facts are left out entirely (be it intentionally or unintentionally). That's why I try to look at all kinds of different sources.

With regard to the present topic, the information from different sources converge into a coherent interpretation. And that's the one I expressed: the security forces in Iraq are heavily infiltrated by militias, and the Iraqi government appears unwilling or unable to do anything about it. And just about everyone is saying time is running out.

You might be uncomfortable with that conclusion (in fact, I'M uncomfortable with it), but it fits all the facts as I know them. And the facts all reinforce each other. So if you think I'm wrong, present your evidence to support a different interpretation. Don't just call me wrong, or simply attack my integrity.