My worry is that they are wratcheting themselves to tightly to the most extreme positions that they will never be able to pull back.

With any luck they'll get wound so tight that their collective heads will explode. One can hope anyway.

Let us hope the Dems lose. We cannot leave Iraq until we win. All we need is time to allow our GIs a chance. I am so proud they are willing to go tour after tour in Iraq.

There is a saying; "if you are in your twenties and are not a liberal, you have no heart; if you are in your forties and are not a conservative you have no brain." I am a member of that heady generation, albeit, coming to it later as it was starting to wane. I often look back and see the damage that we have done to society. Instead of being parents to our children, we want to be their friends. Instead of disciplining them the way our parents disciplined us, we give them a "time-out" etc. It still amazes me that so many of those in my generation never "got it". Common sense brings one back to conservatism, whether, you were there in the first place or not. I would also disagree with "being a liberal or you have no heart" insofar as I see what the left has been promoting for so many years: Abortion as a form of birth control; reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action; keeping single black mothers poor through welfare; keeping black children down by not allowing school choice; keeping senior citizens poor through social security; keeping the US dependent on terrorist states by refusing to let us drill for oil in ANWAR and off the coasts, and to develop oil out of the oil shale areas; and I can go on and on, but I won't. The point being that if we stay at home during this election and let Pelosi, Murtha, Conyers, McDermott, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and Schumer, take a crack at running the government, we are going to be in serious trouble. This is not a scare tactic, but a fact. As bad as the Republicans have been at times, as spineless and chicken-hearted as they have been about Social Security reform and making the taxcuts permanent, they are still infinately better than the alternative in the form of the American Left; think Hugo Chavez only bigger.

Liberalism is basicall an indefensible ideology, it cannot stand up to the rigor of analysis. Just like liberal policies, which cannot stand the test of reasoned argument, Liberals are not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. Not at all surprising, how does one justify high taxes, a weak national defense, gay marriage, abortion, the various false promises of multiculturalism and more? All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination reveals liberals for the frauds and failures they are proved to be -- This is why liberalism collapses under the probing rigor of talk radio, and why liberal talk radio is a dismal failure.

The only thing the liberals can do is to hope the voters don't find out until they get elected.

All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes

But they "cared" and they "tried", and that is what is "truly" important.

arcman and bill, your two posts combined represent about as complete and concise an indictment of liberalism as I have seen in a while. Well done.

The only thing that aggravates me more than liberals themselves is when liberal professors and teachers try to infect the minds of our youth and make them into little drones, as they might have gotten to our friend arcman over here. The amount of liberal bias in our education is just disgusting and it flat out needs to stop.

Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists nearly to the degree you think it does... (i.e. it's another thing one hears on talk radio or it's based on anectodal evidence).

I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias. Why is the Right So Stupid?

This is all well and good gentlemen but from the perspective of one who is not a US citizen who has a bit more of a global viewpoint, if I may. I do not understand what the "analysis" the tenets of liberalism is. Is just saying that liberalism is bunk enough to really hash out the pro and con? I know that liberal ideas here will get the same treatment that conservative ideas will get over at the DailyKos, but consider what conservatism has become in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Even Barry Goldwater could see the direction the GOP was taking when religious groups came into the party in droves in the late 70s and early 80s. Goldwater could not wrap his brain around why a political party would want to ally itself with a religious group when the point of conservatism was to not have government meddling in your personal affairs.

If so many people, and I for one as an observer of American politics understand, feel that the evangelical/Christian Right has such political might maybe it would serve the nation that they should become the viable third party and eventually through the withering of the GOP they would become the dominant second party?

I know most of you are frowning now because you know this is not a tenable position politically for evangelicals because like you have now in Florida it exposes people of "morality" to the decadence of the politcal playing field and the scrutiny that those who place themselves above others, morally, their candidates would have to endure.

I feel equally, that a failed war in Iraq, a failed energy policy that caters to Big Oil, the desire to legislate bigotry in the guise of defending against multiculturalism, the very salad bowl paradigm that makes America still the envy of all who live outside her borders, and the desire to take choice from women and send them back into the unsanitary days of three quarters of a million back alley abortions a year as were seen in the decades preceeding Rove v Wade, does not a successful ideology make.

You said it, arcman. I, too, was a Flower Child. I was a hippie chick, lived in Haight-Ashbury, shacked up with an acid rock drummer, demonstrated against the war, hated the government, and passionately believed that Alger Hiss was innocent.

But looking back, I realize how lucky I was to have been 18, with a solid background behind me, before I dove into this counter-culture swamp of hedonism and anarchy. I did it because it was fun, because my friends did it, because it was what kids did at that time. But I know people who were even just a couple of years younger than I, who bought into it wholeheartedly. My cousin, who is my poster child for Liberal Idiocy, has righteously pronounced "I don't think I have the right to impose my values on anyone"---so her kids were never taught to not interrupt, or to be polite. The era poisoned millions of minds, and we are living with the fallout from that insipid spinelessness and hyper-emotionalism which passed for thought, to this day.

I was lucky. One day in San Francisco I went to the library and checked out "USA" by John Dos Passos---a hard-core lib, by the way, at least at one point in his life. And I read the essays. And when I went back to Boulder and attended the SDS convention, and heard Bernadine Dorhn and her buddies speak, I could see the same exact ballet of carefully choreographed manipulation that Dos Passos had described in his accounts of Socialist management of labor meetings during the Depression. It opened my eyes. It made me realize the the Left is really not a genial, generous, compassionate embrace of the world, but a carefully calculated manipulation of emotion (mostly negative emotion) to benefit those at the top. Between Dos Passos and Orwell, I could never again accept the Left at face value.

It took Bill Clinton and, more to the point, the vicious two-facedness of the supposed feminist movement as they savaged his accusers, to push me to the right and make me take a position.

What ails the democratic party more than anything is the mantra they have adopted without even knowing it:

'For liberals there is no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities.'

If they do get power, they will ruin the economy as they always do, and this time there will be no artificial dot.com bubble to inflate the numbers. They will, of course, blame everything on the 'Bush recession' while the MSM dutifully reports it as gospel.

I still have some K-Tel stock, anyone want to buy it from me, only $400 a share?

Ya know... the liberals on this board are always going on and on about how they think Bush will never reexamine and admit his mistakes and change tactics that aren't working.

Yet, I have never once seen them do that. Social Security is failing... going bankrupt, and the sooner we do something to fix it, the more likely it is that the fix will work. But liberals have stuck their fingers in their ears and are singing "La, la, la, la, la, we can't HEAR you".

Welfare doesn't work. It doesn't help people get out of a bad situation, it just keeps them hovering over the precipice... and it keeps adding more and more on to it because those who grow up with that system are much more likely to "need" it when they are adults. It coddles the kind of behavior that brings and keeps people poor, rather than helping them get to a point where they are successful.

Blocking the building of refineries and drilling has made us completely dependent on not just foreign oil, but because of the locations of major oil sites we are dependent on our enemies that often use the money we pay them in oil to try to destroy us.

Stopping the use of DDT has cost the world millions of lives because of malaria. We may not have known that then, but we do now... yet it doesn't change.

And that's just a small sampling.

As long as liberals refuse to rethink such problems, their complaints of the same in Bush are hollow at best.

LNC, this is a post from an uber-Lib on another thread; "I've been paying attention to "Bush's Plan", BUT the "Plan" keeps changing. . ."

So the complaint here is that Bush changes too much......

In much the same way that kicking Foley out was just another example of conservative intolerance for alternative lifestyles, while not doing it fast enough was just proof of the culture of corruption as evidenced by the Republican Party.

'For liberals there is no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities.'

I like that one.

As a recovering early College Liberal (I attend meetings still), I agree with most of what's been said, although I hold firm to the belief that Liberals in fact have no values unless they first see the conservative stance on the issue, and then automatically take the contradictory perspective. Without conservatives, Liberals would have nothing to campaign on.

The left can't admit it doesn't have all the answers, because its philosophy is that there are no answers, that everyone is right. Terrorists suicide bombers? They must have a good reason. Islamists say, "convert or die?" That's a culture we must respect.

The one thing they do hate is the conservatives for their, "intolerance."

Nevertheless, the right would at times do well to admit it doesn't have all the answers, that some of the ideas, if not the philosophy, of the left might have merit.

We get it here all the time - rude comments about how stupid we are and how if we only knew what was best for us, we'd be leftists. Either that or accusations of intentional evil on our part - we know that leftism is better, but because we're wicked we work to thwart the left so that we can destroy the world in favor of a hefty quarterly profit.

Yup, and you throw the exact same type stuff across the aisle to the other side on a daily basis. Not wringing your hands about that, I see. Because that would require the sort of self-awareness that is antithetical to partisanship.

There is no acknowledgement on the left that they may not have all the right answers - no willingness to engage in intellectual discourse and the give and take of political compromise.

None of this exists on the right, either.

So what, really, is your point in all your caterwauling? That you hate the left and consider it "evil" and "against god" (whatever the hell that means)? Yet again, you're talkin' loud and ain't sayin' nothin'. When you acknowledge that all the ridiculousness that infests rabid left-wing partisanship also infests rabid right-wing partisanship (which you yourself exemplify, much to the amusement of observers), then you'll start to build a bit of credibility.

"Not at all surprising, how does one justify high taxes, a weak national defense, gay marriage, abortion, the various false promises of multiculturalism and more? All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes."

One word answer: Sweden.

Disastrous outcomes? Don't think so.

Chris
"I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias. Why is the Right So Stupid?"

Chris, thanks for the perfect example of liberal snobbery, without justification. In my opinion, those who devote their lives to studying history or political science often don't know when to come in from the rain while drinking coffee at Starbucks with their beard and that academic look BS.

BDS is not a neurosis. Neurotics think they are ill with complaints, the psychotic think there is nothing wrong with their thinking. I agree, the left is psychotic.

Hi Everyone,

I happen to call myself a liberal but when pressed to defend so-called liberal positions, I find myself unable to do so. I think the problem comes when each side charactures the other positions. I have a Republican friend and when I ask him what going on he says "Nothing much. Working hard to kick old people out on the street. Making them eat dog food." I always laughed but he genuinely believed that many liberals and Dems actually thought most conservatives were that mean and cruel.

Anyway, I don't think Bush is evil but I don't think he's very smart or particularly willing to reflect on his choices either. It's strange because those who have supported the the Iraq adventure seem so willing to come up with excuses as to why it has gone poorly. It's ironic that the party of personal responsibility seems so unwilling to apply the same principle to the commander-in-chief.

Almiranta, as always I find you and your post intriguing, fun and most importantly truthful. Others have suggested it before that you should run for office. I’ve no doubt that you’d win in a landslide. Thank you for taking the time to post, your honesty to open yourself up to others and the clarity of thought and ideas that flow from your words.

This also goes to the many other conservative personalities, too numerous to mention here, who take the time to post and provide insight to the truth. Please understand, though you may not always see the good you do and the people you touch, God works through you to spark the fire from which he will triumph over evil. To this end we will all share in his glory. Thank you!

First, what is the false premise behind abortion and gay marriage?

Here's why I am for CHOICE in America. Everyone should have the freedoem to choose who they want to be with and what they do with their bodies. Notice I said to themselves, not to others. Ask yourself: if a gay couple married in california, how does that affect a conservative in Kansas? If I have this right, a conservative view of gay marriage is that it ruins the sancitiy of marriage. How? What do you care what someone does with their own lives?

Then it comes down to the "religion" argument. That marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter how many times you yell it, this counrty was NOT based on Christianity. I won't take the time to list the myraid quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and frankline to prove that to you. They were Deists, not Christians. Yes, Patrick Henry wanted Christianity put in the Constitution, to distinguish them from "infidels", but it was voted down. Jefferson himself talked about the "separation of church and state."

I said all that to say that we cannot make laws based on a bible that many people do not believe in. we must follow the Constitution and its freedoms, a document that has no mention of Jesus or Christianity in it.

Oh, and "Under God" was added in the 1950s, in case some of you were going to use that as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted Christianity to rule America.

Abortion. Once again, this comes down to a religious issue of when life begins. And I say they are doing it to themselves, not to you. If people can drink themselves to death, beat their kids under the guise of "punishment" and tattoo, pierce, and brand themselves into unrecognizable humans, then it shoud be up to the mother (and father, in some cases) what to do with their child.

Many of you will disagree with me, and that's fine. Some will call me stupid, and that's fine , too. But what you cannot say is that I didn't defend my position, which is something that many of you are saying on here.

High taxes? I don't want them, of course. But when I hear warren Buffett and Bill Gates talk about how the middle class is getting screwed, and they aren't paying enough taxes, it makes me wonder. I am middle class, and I can't think of anyone in my family who benefits from captial gains tax cuts. And before you start the trickle-down talk, know that many of my friennds have been laid-off due to outsourcing, and my medical benfits have been cut to nil in my job, not to mention a hiring freeze and the large increase in hiring "freelancers" thereby eliminating all benefits. So there may be more jobs, but the pay/benefit ratio, not so goos.

One more thing about high taxes. I am willing to say that Clinton didn't have too much to so with the boom of the 90's (he did do a little) I think that it was Bush 1's tax hike that boosted the economy. He got voted out for that, but there it is.

I'm going to quit, because a common refrain on the boards is that "liberals" write too much.

But I had to. To prove that we can defend our positions, regardless of whether or not you like them.

I love listening to partisans of either side of the aisle accuse the other side of never admitting they are wrong.

Meanwhile, they themselves never admit they are wrong and their response to that? "Because we're not wrong."

Go on guys, be like every Dem out there and say it. You're not wrong. Dems always are.

Chris,
Spare me your adolescent sophistry!

“Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists (sic) nearly to the degree you think it does...” Yes, it does!

I’m speaking to you from inside the academia asylum; I’ve been a teacher at a public institution and currently work for the University of California, liberal ivory tower theoretical nonsense is alive and well, and it is based on otherworldly phenomena that don’t exist in the real world. Trust me on this one, it’s worse than you ever imagined!

“most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left.” There’s a simple answer for this; the academicians have lived in a world dominated by theory; improvable and not influenced by messy things like peoples’ emotions and desires. Communism and socialism are the perfect political microcosms in this world, not so much in the real world. The intelligencia blame the failures of the ethereal on systems that didn’t follow the procedure as written; instead of admitting that persons are not predictable automatons. Even Plato admitted that it is better to be ruled by a bad dictator than a flawed democracy (communism).

Today’s teachers ignore this lesson and the lessons of personal achievement and self actualization, and teach instead that the world is a Disney movie where all children have “special” talents, and no child is better or worse than another; all ideas are valid, (provided they agree with the teacher), good and bad are indistinguishable, subjective and require being judgmental (a bad thing to a teacher), and only those who strive to achieve are demonized as subjugators and usurers.

The liberal studies of higher education don’t want or preach equal opportunity; they strive for equal outcome, excluding, of course the academicians themselves; who deserve the fruits of others’ labors in exchange for their pontifications from on high.

You are sooooo right! I mean, those liberals are simply destroying our country. They're nothing but a bunch of baby killing, terrorist supporting, immoral godless commies. They have no idea what it is that made this country great! We should jail every liberal politian and college professor for treason! Thank God we have a Christian president in office, or else I just don't know how we could possibly get through these trying times. Let's take back America!!!!!!!!!!! Prince Jeb for President 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not the Liberals giving Republicans the poll numbers they now have. You can spin it that way, but unless 75% + of the nation is "Liberal" then this blog is just B.Sing the facts.

Dear Republicans you can blame the liberals, the Media, The Clintons, the Martians and the Bad Spirits..... In the end if acted like adults, you would take responsibility for your actions and understand that the American people is simply FED UP WITH YOU ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR MISTAKES AND INCOMPETENCE.

You are out come November.

OH, and by the way it took you only 12 years to end up the same as the Democrats did after 40+ when Newt took over...... Difference is that Newt at least had a plan, the Dems are not even bothering with a plan today, they simply ask the question that Newt himself had for Americans when asked about the Republican's performace in Congress ..... Had enough?

The resounding answer is YES!!

You lost Right Wingers..... Good Bye and don't let the door hit you on your way out....... See ya' in 40 years, and hope you lern your lesson by then.

Someone said liberalism is an indefensible ideology. We can argue that. But as of yet, no conservative ideology has ever been tried. Bush is no conservative. He is anti-choice, pro-tax cuts for the rich and pro-predatory war. But he has yet to get Roe undone, he spends more than any Democrat with no revenue compensation, and he left the real war on Al Qaeda unfinished. He's failed at everything he's done. Of course, I did not vote for him and don't support him. My opposition to the Iraq war was more about my lack of faith in his and Rummy's competence than it was the war itself. Imagine if he had used the Powell doctrine! Iraq might actually be a beacon of hope over there, and one is needed.

My only hope for you people who hate me and other liberals every bit as much as you accuse people of hating Bush, is that when the Dems get power and actually fix the mess, that you give them their props. I have little faith that you will. I gave W every chance after his appointment in 2000. I tried to support him. But he's let a nation down time and again. Maybe an _actual_ conservative would be good for America. And maybe an _actual_ communist government would work. But this is all idealism, because in either case, the lust for power is the death knell to any ideology.

My hope is that our next President, be they Republican or Democrat, is not as hated like the last two. It'd be nice not to have all this hate amongt my fellow Americans, even those with whom I profoundly disagree. I'm mostly sick of being told that I am against America because I am revolted by Bush and Cheney's policies. But I guess that's the way it is now.

Why is the Right So Stupid?

Real simple, Chris -- because it drives you Lefties so nuts. If you couldn't complain about how stupid we are, you'd have nothing left to hang your hat on. You certainly don't have any original ideas or any solutions to the world's problems.

Intelligence Quotient and academic accolade has nothing at all to do with whether or not the holder suffers from a psychosis.

And that is the real problem in academia today.

.

Victor Davis Hanson must be a hell of a historian since it was 'liberal' NewsMax that accused McCain of breaking under torture:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

"Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists..."

Baloney! Ever drive through a teacher parking lot at your kids school or college. Its Kerry/Edwards and Bush Lied... on 80 % of the cars.

A good chuckle at the self-righteous back-patting liberal-whacking going on here. No, the Democratic Party has not held Congress since 1994. That's OK. We apparently needed the time in the wilderness, as you are about to get yours.

Here's the less-than-varnished version of reality.

The truth lies a little away from the self-congratulatory spittum on this board. Americans don't want to be badly governed, or feel cheated. When a party hangs around long enough to get intoxicated with power and start misbehaving (grotesquely as the Republicans have done and the Democratic Party did earlier), then they get booted. The Republicans didn't stay in power because their ideas were better or smarter. Rove hasn't sat around worrying which policies were better for this country. They focused on the levers of power: districting, GOTV, fund-raising. And that is the simple truth. They do it MUCH better than the Democrats, and nation-wide have managed to gerrymander themselves into a lot (but as you will soon find out not enough) safe seats.

Don't fool yourself that it has anything to do with "great ideas". I am not saying the Republicans are bereft of ideas: it's just that if we go down the list of this Administration's high concepts, well, they haven't either been well received (social security reform, immigration reform), particularly well-implemented (no child left behind, Iraq) or popular (Iraq). In terms of policy concepts, the big success is "cut taxes": neither a new policy, nor a particular subtle one. Regardless of economic condition, it seems to be the permanent cure to everything. In the end, it always had the feeling of a gift given to the wealthy and a bone tossed to everyone else. Easy to sell, but the consequences of deficits out forever never really paid for. And lets face it: this president has never behaved fiscally conservatively, so it wasn't like the tax cuts were part of some philosophy, otherwise they wouldn't have spent like drunken sailors.

So, what we have is really not the most brilliant or effective policies offered up by a party that was extremely successful in message control and getting elected. The results of the policies (failure in Iraq, failures with Katrina, perceptions of excessive executive power, etc) finally caught up and seem to be outweighing the power of money. As always, the last two weeks may play out very differently, but right now it looks like you are in for a drubbing. It will be fun to watch.

The Democrats will now have their shot at policy, which they have typically been a bit better at, and message control, which has been terrible. What will be particularly amusing will be listening to you justify that the reason why you lost (and probably lost big) was the Democrats' fault or the mass media's fault or unfortunate series of events. All false. The reason you you are about to lose is the very policies you are so proud of. They caught up to you. They stank, and you will tank as a result.

A good chuckle at the self-righteous back-patting liberal-whacking going on here. No, the Democratic Party has not held Congress since 1994. That's OK. We apparently needed the time in the wilderness, as you are about to get yours.

Here's the less-than-varnished version of reality.

The truth lies a little away from the self-congratulatory spittum on this board. Americans don't want to be badly governed, or feel cheated. When a party hangs around long enough to get intoxicated with power and start misbehaving (grotesquely as the Republicans have done and the Democratic Party did earlier), then they get booted. The Republicans didn't stay in power because their ideas were better or smarter. Rove hasn't sat around worrying which policies were better for this country. They focused on the levers of power: districting, GOTV, fund-raising. And that is the simple truth. They do it MUCH better than the Democrats, and nation-wide have managed to gerrymander themselves into a lot (but as you will soon find out not enough) safe seats.

Don't fool yourself that it has anything to do with "great ideas". I am not saying the Republicans are bereft of ideas: it's just that if we go down the list of this Administration's high concepts, well, they haven't either been well received (social security reform, immigration reform), particularly well-implemented (no child left behind, Iraq) or popular (Iraq). In terms of policy concepts, the big success is "cut taxes": neither a new policy, nor a particular subtle one. Regardless of economic condition, it seems to be the permanent cure to everything. In the end, it always had the feeling of a gift given to the wealthy and a bone tossed to everyone else. Easy to sell, but the consequences of deficits out forever never really paid for. And lets face it: this president has never behaved fiscally conservatively, so it wasn't like the tax cuts were part of some philosophy, otherwise they wouldn't have spent like drunken sailors.

So, what we have is really not the most brilliant or effective policies offered up by a party that was extremely successful in message control and getting elected. The results of the policies (failure in Iraq, failures with Katrina, perceptions of excessive executive power, etc) finally caught up and seem to be outweighing the power of money. As always, the last two weeks may play out very differently, but right now it looks like you are in for a drubbing. It will be fun to watch.

The Democrats will now have their shot at policy, which they have typically been a bit better at, and message control, which has been terrible. What will be particularly amusing will be listening to you justify that the reason why you lost (and probably lost big) was the Democrats' fault or the mass media's fault or unfortunate series of events. All false. The reason you you are about to lose is the very policies you are so proud of. They caught up to you. They stank, and you will tank as a result.

But Peter, you ignored the question at hand... Why are libs insane? It's an important question. Please stay on topic...

"The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs."-VDH

Yep. And what wicked beliefs they are.

Sooo... if the Dems win the House how much do you think the House is going to control the Senate or the White House?

You libs bashed Bush for not using the veto pen much. Well, anything you want to try and do; Bush will have to agree to it. And if you think the Dems last six years of DO NOTHING instead of solving problems in an attempt to get the electorate so angry with Congress for doing nothing; then just wait to see how far it can go with a Speaker Pelosi... you know... grammie Pelosi, worth about 14 million dollars who walks in parades with members of NAMBLA who has a 100% Abortion rating; a 0% rating for gun rights; a 100% NEA rating and a 0% from FAIR.

She claims to be in favor of energy independence but has VOTED AGAINST any legitimate method of doing that.

She claims to be in favor of low taxes, yet hasn't voted for a tax cut in 12 years and voted for the LARGEST tax increase in history.

Y'all might just be kicking yourself if she becomes Speaker of the House.

Continued fallout from Clinton's cut-and-run from Mogadishu after the Blackhawk Down incident-

Somali Islamists 'under al-Qaeda'

(AFP): SOMALIA'S interim president appealed today for international help in dealing with a powerful Islamist movement he accused of operating under the "black flag" of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Speaking to a US-backed panel of diplomats trying to salvage foundering peace talks, President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed said the world had a "moral obligation" to help protect his weak government from "foreign terrorists".

He said the Islamists, who seized Mogadishu in June from warlords and now control nearly all of southern and central Somalia, were falsely portraying themselves as moderates and posed a major regional and international threat.

Many thanks, DM.

I keep drawing lines between Liberals and the core Democrats. I noted that in 2004, something like 70% of those who voted for Kerry did so not because they voted FOR Kerry, but just AGAINST Bush. So I have never seen either Bush election as a mandate for the radical Left as much as a reflection of the success of the BDS movement.

If I am right, this leaves the Left in something of a bind, as now they have to convince these good people that there is ANOTHER demon out there in Republican clothing, as bad as Bush or even worse. And I think that decent Democrats are going to get tired of being asked to just vote AGAINST someone, on a hate-based agenda, instead of FOR something.

I have a visual in my mind of millions of rational Democrats being pushed up against a retaining wall of Bush hatred, caught between the belief that surely not ALL of the venom spewed against Bush can be wrong and the scary wild-eyed radicalism of the NDP---New Democratic Party. And in my visual, if the NDP starts to believe their own propaganda and nominates one of their own in '08, all the Republicans have to is nominate a likable candidate for that retaining wall to collapse, and for many of those millions to flow to the right.

Because while the NDP is truly nuts, I still have faith in the mainstream Dems, who are Dems because they believe that it's just right to turn over more of their earnings to support others and lots of social programs, who truly believe that we don't need to worry too much about bad foreigners trying to hurt us, who are afraid of guns, and who want schools to do social engineering along with academics. I may not agree with any of those agendas, but they are legitimate points of view, and real issues, as opposed to the All Hate All The Time demonizing of the right that has kept the radical Left afloat these past few years.

Have you noticed that we don't have rational debates on whether or not we should take on more social spending, but instead stupid comments designed to divide people on emotional grounds, like the beloved "tax cuts for the rich" mantra? There are too many smart Dems who are getting tired of the blatant efforts to manipulate them emotionally, and who want and may soon demand real issues debated by real leaders instead of the demagoguery they are getting now.

And it's the Republicans who treat people with respect, who assume they can figure out the economics, who can see the dangers of terrorism and a weak defense, who realize that tax cuts benefit all of us and not just "the rich" and who don't assume that voters are idiots.

Doug sounds like one of these moderate Dems looking for leadership. He clearly bought into the demagoguery that Bush and Rumsfeld are dummies, but at least he is tired of the divisiveness and nastiness that has prevailed. BTW, Doug, the right did NOT "hate" Clinton, any more than a cop "hates" the guy he arrests for breaking the law. You sound like a decent, if confused, guy, and I hate to see you sucked into the hyper-emotional drivel that tries to pin irrational "hatred" onto the Right, regarding Clinton, to try to justify the viciousness directed toward Bush.

Bane, thanks for the answer. To those who are focusing on my last sentence (the Right is Stupid), take a look at the title of this post (the Left is Insane)...one meaningless stereotype for another...pretty useless, huh? But if Mark thinks he needs some "sizzle" like that for debate...well, it's his blog. I'll play along. But thanks for the steak, Bane.

"I’m speaking to you from inside the academia asylum; I’ve been a teacher at a public institution and currently work for the University of California, liberal ivory tower theoretical nonsense is alive and well, and it is based on otherworldly phenomena that don’t exist in the real world. Trust me on this one, it’s worse than you ever imagined!"

I think you have good points, and I'm definitely glad to hear your experience, but that is sort of what I mean when I say "anecdotal." But that's beside the point; you may very well be right -- I didn't go through the California system.

"There’s a simple answer for this; the academicians have lived in a world dominated by theory; improvable and not influenced by messy things like peoples’ emotions and desires. Communism and socialism are the perfect political microcosms in this world, not so much in the real world. The intelligencia blame the failures of the ethereal on systems that didn’t follow the procedure as written; instead of admitting that persons are not predictable automatons."

Agh, nonono. I have never heard of one professor saying, "Communism really is best. It would work if we just implemented it perfectly." Everyone professor I've ever known (of all political stripes) acknowledges it as a failed system, precisely because of the reasons you cited. I don't think you're giving historians and political scientists enough credit for realizing such a basic principle.

"Today’s teachers ignore this lesson and the lessons of personal achievement and self actualization, and teach instead that the world is a Disney movie where all children have “special” talents, and no child is better or worse than another; all ideas are valid, (provided they agree with the teacher), good and bad are indistinguishable, subjective and require being judgmental (a bad thing to a teacher), and only those who strive to achieve are demonized as subjugators and usurers."

That is such a strawman. Of course there are teachers who act like that, but they are few and far between, and they exist on the other end of the spectrum as well. Anyway, I thought we were talking about professors; sounds more like you're describing a kindergarten teacher. The professors I know grade harshly based on two things: Did you get your facts right and did you make a good argument? The conclusion of that argument is irrelevant. There is a definite right and wrong as far as facts go. As far as analysis, if you can argue logically, then your answer will be "correct." Again, of course there are professors (on both extremes, believe me) who actually grade based on whether or not you agree with them, but I suspect they are the exception not the rule. Of course, they're the ones people remember and talk about, hence the problem of anecdotal evidence!

"The liberal studies of higher education don’t want or preach equal opportunity; they strive for equal outcome..."

That's certainly not what Rawls wrote, and it's light-years away from Nozick. Are you talking about someone specific or making a general stereotype? In my "liberal studies" (by which I assume you mean political philosophy classes or something), I was taught that equal opportunity exists to level the playing field, yet you have to earn your own way and respect property rights. the "liberal" Amartya Sen echoes Rawls: It really is about equality of opportunity, not equality of final position. That's what academic liberals are saying from the 20th century on. That's the position you have to argue against, if you really want to. It's easy to attack the hypothetical nutty liberal professor who indoctrinates his students and forces them to believe as he does! It's much harder to address what the real liberal "elite" in the field are actually saying.

You know, it's kind of fun to see all the bile you people are spewing while you tremble at the thought of losing your grip on power. You call anyone who disagrees with you every foul name you can think of, you dismiss them as whiners and looney lefties, but can't offer a rational defense for your own absmyl failures of the past few years.
Deny, Defame, Discredit. That's the far right ethos we get from you. Most people are now quite aware that Republicans can't even be trusted to balance a budget, much less lead a war. So enjoy that slow twist in the wind. And perhaps you can get Big Pharma to grant you a discount on your anti-depressants.

But don't count on it.

P.S. Yes, you DID hate Clinton.

Peter,

Just be sure to be here on election night - as I've been saying all year and am going to say again today: the GOP will gain seats in both houses. Every indicator is for a GOP victory - all you've got is MSMers talking to each other and a set of bogus polls....with the latest meme being that the GOP is going to stay home...which is rather strange, since if we're all that depressed and angry then how come tens of thousands of us volunteered to make more than a million personal contacts (via phone and door knocking) last month?

You've got nothing on the left...just a story, and reality will come crashing on you November 7th.

Tom,

The question is already answered - that you on the left are a bunch of self-absorbed, spoiled brats who don't understand why we don't all kneel in awe before your liberal worldview....the topic, strictly speaking, is to discuss just how stupid the left is.

I all can do is shake my head at this point.

Err... that should be "all I can do."

And Mark, I don't think there's any doubt now that you're unhealthily obsessed with bashing "liberalism."

If ever answer any question I pose to you, answer this one. A little while ago, you posted an attack on liberals who are obsessed with bashing Bush and the right.

Looking at the thread you are posting in, do you see how hypocritical you are?

Reading the comments, you Wingers have the Hannity and Limbaugh talking points down, which they got from one of their WH visits. But this is why the Republicans are down to about 35% favorable. America is sick of the Right Wing Neocons divisiveness, non-bipartisan hate for anything that is not Republican. Three branches of Government and Republicans have accomplished little or nothing: inheritance tax breaks for the likes of Paris Hilton, bridges to rich folks in Alaska, increases in the number of pregnancies and abortions, $3.00 gas, stagnant wages, floating bodies in New Orleans, nukes in North Korea, $500 billion to build Iraqi roads and schools.

My God the President was out there campaigning for Mistress Choking Sherwood of PA. Has the Republican Party really sunk this low?

*Chuckles*

I always enjoy the bashing threads. They're always so colorful! :D

Honestly folks, we do tend to take ourselves a bit too seriously from time to time. I don't mind fighting tooth and nail over issues or on the campaign trail but against one another it's just plain old silly. I'll tackle any issue you want, and I've proven that I'm not a "Bushbot" or a "Liberalwacko" and I think by and large most of you fine folks aren't one or the other as well.

I know Tom and I have had some nice debates here and even agreed on some fine points.

I know I've disagreed with Mark on a few key points as well and he doesn't kick me off the site. :)

So feel free to poke fun and be made fun of. It's all the same anyway. Just remember at the heart of all of this are some very serious matters. When the time comes I hope we all take a serious look at the issues, choose our side, and be prepared to fight for every inch of it on the merits, not because "it's the opposite of the other guy."

Welfare doesn't work. It doesn't help people get out of a bad situation, it just keeps them hovering over the precipice... and it keeps adding more and more on to it because those who grow up with that system are much more likely to "need" it when they are adults. It coddles the kind of behavior that brings and keeps people poor, rather than helping them get to a point where they are successful.

Yes.....New Orleans was a fine example.

"I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias." Chris

Chris, most of these "so called experts" have never had to work for a living. University tenure is gained only by bowing to peer pressure and submitting to the gods of liberalism.

In otherwords:

If you can't DO...teach

So this was what those "last throes" Dick Cheney was talking about awhile back look like. You guys need to take a serious look at yourselves.

And Mark, I don't think there's any doubt now that you're unhealthily obsessed with bashing "liberalism."

Its not about bashing "liberalism".

You're out of touch with the War on Terrorism. Heaven forbid the democrats win in November. What happens if we have another terrorist attack? The Democrats strategy is that terrorism is more of a police issue.

Yesterday Charlie Rangel on Fox news referred to the mastermind of 911 as an alleged terrorist. John Kerry refers to the war in Iraq as Lies, Lies, Lies while our soldiers are dying and getting hurt for life. Chris Dodd refering to the Interrogation bill "major blow to who we are".

Bin Laden is sitting in his cave and laughing his ass off at the Democratic party. I am sure he wishes he could stuff a few ballot boxes himself.

How sadly ironic GWB's generation is the hippie, freelovin, peacenik, flowerpower generation. How sad it was when the Kent State student protesters were shot dead. Dead. Protesting a no win war. Protesting the draft of so many handsome young men and sending them to battle for what? And yet we see ourselves right back there again. W acknowledged the Tet offensive and our situation in Iraq was similar. Stand by your man. Your commander in chief. Keep saying "stay the course", changing nothing. Pouring young men and women into a meat grinder. Have your Generals state matter of factly that your Secretary of defense is "inspired by God". The prince of peace.

I find it truley sad all of W's generation has turned into what they are today-bizzaro images of the ideals they once admired. So incredibly frightened, so faux haughty. You sicken me.

You will be remembered as the generation of obesity and greed. Wanton disregard for the rest of the people of the world and the earth.

Look at your children. Idolizing gangsters and bling. Breast agumentation and ipods. Most of your children will not vote only from mere apathy and ignorance.

The world you see today is your world W. A mess.

Your mess. And you have no idea how to fix it now. So stay the course. God is on our side. Our God is better than their God. They call us infidels. We call them islamofacists.

Your generation had a chance. A chance to lead this world in peace and true freedom. Learning from our past mistakes. Striving to improve the quality of life and leave a soft footprint on the earth.

And your generation pisses it away.

I can only shake my head in dismay.

And I thank God for Keith Olbermann.

awww.... Raker found a kindred spirit in someone who couldn't hack it as a reporter for ESPN.

Also Raker... out of curiosity...are you an old man lamenting the fact that the past is just that; the past.

The society you see now is the FAULT of those hippie beatniks you mention. Their free love turned into NO CONSEQUENCES and NO RULES. That's why kids today are shitheads and apathetic.

That particular problem isn't political, because bad parents exist in both parties (even though the Democrats are doing a good job of getting rid of their future members before they're even born).

I hope that whining made you feel good... now besides the tripe "Bush lied... Impeach Bush" bullsh*t, how do you suggest we get rid of the materialism that is rampant in this society.

Perhaps you could start and unplug that computer and just get back in bed and hope for the best.

Funny how all these neocons for 8 years were foaming at the mouth spewing hate and lies during the Clinton administration and now their only defense in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible evidence is "you just hate our Daddy G". I guess they are the hate experts and know all about it.

Some day they, God willing will out grow their adolescent behavior and start paying attention to the world around them.

Speaking of which how do all you Christian Conservatives feel about being laughed at and made fun of by the Bush administration. They used you for their own ends and left the real Christian agenda to wither and die.

There is no question that the Democrats are disorganized, wimpy and sometimes very wrong. But, and a big "but" it is, the current crop of Republicans need to be stopped in their tracks in the way they have run bulldozer-like over our liberties and become more like Liberals with their "spend and spend" and "create Big Government" policies. In case you haven't noticed, the current crop of Republicans have run up the largest debt ever seen in the U.S. and created the biggest government ever. So they have been "Liberals" in terms of spending more than we have and creating more government with its rules, inefficiencies and propensity to grow even more, than we've ever seen.

In addition to these destructive tendencies, the current crop of Republicans have been acting the way amateurs do, not knowing or understanding the impact of what it has been doing. From President Bush, who makes a joke of his ignorance, to stooges such as Rumsfeld and truly unfeeling fixed-idea men such as Cheney, we have suffered from inept and uninformed leadership. Iraq is just one example of such amateurness, with a war that had no plan for any follow-up. Iran is another. The way we’ve handled Afghanistan is still another. North Korea was essential ignored and antagonized. Our ignoring the essential conflict between Israel and the Palestine peoples, just hoping it will go away. Add them up and we can now see how inept this administration has been. The underlying theme has been “our way or the highway; we’re such a strong country we can tell anyone what to do.” Then look at the current economy, changed from a positive one in which our assets were growing to one in which almost everything except oil has been declining. If oil weren't artificially low, the current rate of inflation would be appalling. Asking the military, who weren’t trained to build nations and who did their job heroically in the war, to sort out what needs to be done in Iraq or Afghanistan is truly amateurish; such work was never the military’s job. Not even having a full professional cadre of those who speak the language of our enemies, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Lebanon – the FBI is now frantically looking for translators - how could this administration even pretend to understand what forces it has unleashed? The author of “Fiasco”, Tom Ricks, has said we’ll probably have troops in Iraq for fifteen years because of how amateurishly things have been handled. I grieve for our sons and daughters and our grandchildren who will be forced to handle the mess that on.

The real conservatives are calling for a separate party. I hope to join it. The “spend and spend” and “create bigger government” party that is known as the Republican Party evidently endorses smarmy Foley and Hastert who protect us from those other guys, including the foreign terrorists and the homegrown gays. In the short run, rather than indulge in wish fulfillment thinking, we may have to vote Democrat to balance off the existing Republic greed machine, but then we need to get it together to truly create a Conservative Party, with true Conservative ideals.

*Chuckles*

I love how you folks are jumping on the fact that Bush agreed that the current fighting is similar to the Tet offensive. You do realize we WON the Tet offensive militarily don't you? How we kicked the VC butt up one side and down the other even though they got us on our back foot for a little while? If it wasn't for the stupid media painting of it folks might realize it.

Sheesh...

Why do we have to deal with extremes? I'm a Republican who considers himself conservative. Yet I have no patience with those who reject ANY tax increase, ANY abortion and sign on to ALL of the themes of the religious fundamentalists. Our party has lost its way, convinced they are the white hat cowboys in the land of evil and have license to do whatever they want, break laws and treaties. Republican leaders are rightly viewed as arrogant from within and outside our country and include the likes of George bush, Dick Cheaney or Tom Delay. It's time to vote them out, not to be replaced by Democrats but by statesmen - those who do what's right, not what's expedient, what's popular or what will get theri party the most votes.

Sure, and the Viet Nam War ended how? I recall many times over the past 4 years the Bush Gov distancing itself from Viet Nam--now they embrace it. Take a look at the end result to see where Iraq is headed, though Bush has said many times that he plans to leave the mess of Iraq for the next president to resolve. (nice of him)

Almiranta-

Your assessment of Democrats is sad, wrong, and shameful.

You think it's only the libs who are condescending?

You write-
"Doug sounds like one of these moderate Dems looking for leadership. He clearly bought into the demagoguery that Bush and Rumsfeld are dummies, but at least he is tired of the divisiveness and nastiness that has prevailed."

It isn't demagoguery to believe that their plan has failed. I was against the war, but far more against the handling of it. I was clear about that. If it had to be done, I would have liked to have seen more troops sent in, as many generals wanted. I would have liked to have seen a pacified Iraq that was stable, along with a stable Afghanistan. That way, you have two stable countries on either side of Iran. But you so narrowly say that us Dems don't take the threats in the world seriously and it's contributing to the hate.

"BTW, Doug, the right did NOT "hate" Clinton, any more than a cop "hates" the guy he arrests for breaking the law."

I think you need to revisit the facts of history. Ever heard of Limbaugh? Remember Lindsay Graham back when he was in the House? The right despised Bill Clinton and challenged his legitimacy from day one. It's true that the left has its fair share of Bush haters. Y'all would have raised high holy hell too if Bush had won the popular vote in 2000 and Gore won the Electoral College. Even if you won't admit it, you know the truth.

"You sound like a decent, if confused, guy, and I hate to see you sucked into the hyper-emotional drivel that tries to pin irrational "hatred" onto the Right, regarding Clinton, to try to justify the viciousness directed toward Bush."

That was really condescending. I am not confused about anything. You assume that I'm wrong because of my beliefs. You assume that I'm confused because I think Rumsfelds military ideology is misguided and not based in reality. You think I'm confused because I think GWB exhibits a lack of curiosity and the ability to consider more than one viewpoint. We could debate these points, and I'd be happy to. But it seems easier to dismiss me as some sort of confused dimwit.

At any rate, all we can do is what we can do. And what I intend to do is spend some time in Tennessee busting my ass for Congressman Ford, vote here in Connecticut for my candidate of choice, and when my party is in power I intend to write my party's leadership all the time and express to them my desire to get things done and not exact revenge on the GOP, even though they probably deserve to be shut out of the legislative process like the Dems have since 1994. I don't want that. I sure as hell don't want impeachment, unless the coming investigations find that he committed a crime worse than lying about sex. I want that man in office on Election Day 2008 to remind the country of what it's like to have a Republican president. I disagree with what your party does when in power. But what would be as bad if not worse is to waste our nation's time getting revenge instead of doing the things I think will be best for all of us.

My one question for you is this:

If we have a Dem Congress and President in the next few years and they balance the budget, will you give them credit for it?

"What sends liberal criticism over the edge into pathological hysteria?

Is it that George Bush is a polarizing figure, not just in terms of his Iraq policy, but also because of his Christian Texan demeanor?"

38% approval for Bush. 16% approval for Congress.

It ain't just the Libs who are unhappy. Face it, folks. The GOP has screwed the pooch. Your days are numbered.

Indeed, Mark.

The left has lost all sense of moral decency!
They have no kindness or dignity, Instead they only show, bigotry, hate and vile words in a fit of rage to seek control of the lives of others!

No doubt, we need a Don Quixote figure to get America out of this moral malaise, with the idea of honor, and the unbought grace of LIFE!!

Why is the left insane? They have rejected God!!! Seeking after the evil, sinful desires of the world!

As for the future? Now is the time to pick up our lances and charge the cultural windmills before American civilization is blown off the pages of history. We must do it in the trusting spirit of John Quincy Adams who avouched, "The duty is mine and the outcome belongs to God."

Jeremiah

See, here it comes from the NY Times front web page. We won't have to worry about prisoners or habeaus corpus:

"Or Mr. Bush can reassess the strategy itself, perhaps listening to those advisers ­ including some members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the advisory commission charged with coming up with new strategies for Iraq ­ who say that he needs to redefine the “victory” that he again on Thursday declared was his goal."

Jim Baker to the rescue!

No "cut and run", however; no "traitors." Just "reassess the strategy." Hm, I think Murtha was saying that. So, please, we need to get out the long knives and start calling Jim Baker and his committee a "cut and run" group and a "traitor."

Mark said:

as I've been saying all year and am going to say again today: the GOP will gain seats in both houses. Every indicator is for a GOP victory.

You detest "polls" but love "indicators"...not sure how to take that one.

Not all the pollsters are MSM, Mark. Scott Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian, and if his polls are biased I hardly doubt that they are biased in favor of the Democrats. He correctly identified all 50 states in 2004.

He now claims that Americans think the terrorists are winning, 36% to 31%, 54% say Iraq will get worse over the next year, and "we are safer since 9/11" loses 36% to 45%. He has the senate at 48/48 with 4 tossups (big range I know but no gains for Republicans.)

Are these not "indicators" in your book?

Bush and his Administration now have demonstrated and instituted the worst of all liberal traits. The first is their "spend and spend" policies, with no end in sight as our President even promises aid to Lebanon, with no respect for the conservative philosophy of reducing our debt, not increasing it. I suggest that "spend and spend" is more liberal than tax and spend. And make no mention of the fact that our government, under this Administration, has created the largest deficit ever and the most debt, ever. For holders of assets, such as myself, this "spend and spend" policy (in pursuit of the "Bush doctrine") will mean that our government issued bonds will be worth less and less, and this will drag our economy down and make us vulnerable to holders of these bonds, such as the Chinese. The other area that you haven't mentioned, in which Bush and his Administration is incontestably "liberal" is in his unfettered growth of government; it cannot be contested that our government is now the biggest it has ever been. This is very liberal, I'm afraid "big government" is now a hallmark of a Republican administration; I never thought I'd see a "spend and spend" and "create Big Government" Republican administration.

Ironic, isn't it? A friend of mine who is a very rich staunch capitalist said, "At heart I am a libertarian. I think Bush is Lyndon Johnson Jr. guns & butter.. The only voices I hear in Congress for more financial responsibility are from a minority of the Republicans, nothing from the Democrats. I do agree power corrupts. I don’t like deficit spending either by individuals or by governments. Deficit spending almost always weakens the borrower in the long run."

The real conservatives are calling for a separate party. I hope to join it. The “spend and spend” and “create bigger government” party that is known as the Republican Party evidently endorses smarmy Foley and Hastert who protect us from those other guys, including the foreign terrorists and the homegrown gays. In the short run, rather than indulge in wish fulfillment thinking, we may have to vote Democrat to balance off the existing Republic greed machine, but then we need to get it together to truly create a Conservative Party, with true Conservative ideals.

Chris...PhD = Piled High Deeper

Those that can...do! Those that can't...teach.

I have two graduate degrees, both M.S....I find these same people you fawn over to be some of the more unintelligent folks to walk the planet. These folks often cannot tie their shoes let alone survive on their own in society. They are usually the weakest of the weak and thus gravitate to the left because they need things like tenure to survive. They need their cocoon bubble like protection at a university to function at all.

You may coddle them all you wish and praise them for their intelligence. Me, I live in the real world and these folks do not.

OCPatriot, I am a conservative and not a Republican. I also live in the O.C. I am furious with the Republican spending, but I am not stupid enough to think that voting for a Democrat would be a better alternative. Nor do I know ANY conservative that thinks this way.

I know some that will sit this out, but no way are they voting for a party (Dems) that raise taxes, support handouts, spend money on frivilous projects, steal from those that succeed and overall want a socialst agenda.

To quote Hillary...we're going to take from you so we can give it to others.

Now, if you're truly a conservative as you suggest (I have my doubts), please explain to us all why a vote for a Democrat is a smart move. Please back it up with facts. I could understand a vote for a libertarian. I could understand a vote for no one. A vote for a Democrat...please, explain that rationale to us.

Warriornation,

How's about this for fact: Conservatives have had the last 6 years to prove what they got, and it has amounted to more divided nation, the biggest debt in national history, more enemies with nukes... I mean, how many more chances do we have to give? If the Dems had been running things this whole time, there would have been calls for impeachment years ago. Stop giving the green light just because of party lines and start listening to messages. At least the Dems have a message of hope and don't use scare tactics. As for all ya'll ex-hippies, those of use from a younger generation know that it was all just a fad. We want to see real change that makes sense for a better future and aren't jumping any band wagons, so get out of our way....

Jim,

And Rasmussen will be the first to admit that polling for midterms is notoriously difficult - the really good indicator over at Rasmussen is that President Bush's approval hasn't moved one way or the other in months...meaning that for all the hoo-haw on the left about how everyone hates him, there really hasn't been much change in overall opinion about him.

That aside, the real indicators are things like the booming economy, the surging stock market, the GOP's much superior GOTV program, Howard Dean is a pinhead, Democrats are borrowing money to finish out the campaign, gas prices have dropped like a rock, unemployment is down, Republicans are poised for easy victory in the blue States of California and Hawaii, the very blue State of New Jersey is entirel in play less than three weeks out - as contrasted to the fact that very conservative Santorum in blue Pennsylvania is considered by all and sundry to still have an even money shot at winning...

As I've also been saying all year, all of the evidence is in favor of a GOP victory in 2006 - the only contra-indicators are most of the polls (not all of them - some of them are showing the GOP doing quite well)...but even the best of polling routinely underestimates GOP voting strength, and some of these polls showing a route of the GOP have margins of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Perhaps I'm just whistling past the graveyard - perhaps I'll be sitting here on November 7th eating whole bags of crow...come what may, I will be here and I will accept the loss for what it would be: a determination by the American people that victory in the War on Terrorism isn't, in the minds of a majority, worth the effort. So be it - the will of the people will prevail in our democratic republic. On the other hand, I've been a pretty savvy observer of politics and I've never been more serene less than three weeks out before a vote...I was more nervous three weeks before the vote in 1984. Today, I'm absolutely calm and confident. I've got no worries.

Speaking of "polarizing figures"- V.D.Hanson
is up to his old tricks. That column is typical
of him, setting up Leftist straw-men , then
demonizing them with elaborate name-calling--
"savage" Left-wingers from the "tribal 60's",
a party consisting of "aging" "irresponsible"
Leftists, ad naseum..give me a break. Hanson
should give a try at fantasy,esp with his
descriptive writing, and give those of us who
live in reality a rest from his political
fiction.

"I will be here and I will accept the loss for what it would be: a determination by the American people that victory in the War on Terrorism isn't, in the minds of a majority, worth the effort."

This just smacks of desperation. Our policy in Iraq is floundering... (remember that Baghdad security clampdown you trumpeted Mark? Ain't going so well), we're finally getting a serious look at alternatives to Bush's policy with Baker (one of which it seems Dems have been offering for over a year -- only to be called treasonous for it, while also withstanding claims they have no alternative plans for Iraq)... so you fall back on what you know... FEAR. Hey, worked with IRaq, right? Smoking guns as mushroom clouds and what not...

Well, I for one, have faith in the American people that they'll see through this pandering-- this fear mongering--that if the Dems are elected, we'll withdraw from the war on terrorism and we'll be attacked harder. That ad you posted in just blatant fear-mongering. No shame.

I mean, when McCain says he'd kill himself if Dems take control, I'm betting most Americans see that as a politician trying to hold onto power; they're not thinking "my god, i better not elect a democrat. McCain seems to think it would be really bad!"

Wow, Mark, you sure hit a nerve---or several. I haven't seen this much techno-spittle flying for a long time.

It has, however, been an excellent reference point for what passes for intellectual politcal debate on the Left.

Raker had an entire post which illustrated the Left bafflement more clearly than any I have seen for quite a while.

"How sadly ironic GWB's generation is the hippie, freelovin, peacenik, flowerpower generation."

Totally missing the point that this is also the generation of Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Bill Clinton. It is not "sad" nor "ironic" but merely a statement of fact---millions of us grew up in that era. And we have had excellent discussions on the negative legacy of the "freelovin peacenik flowerpower" mentality.

"How sad it was when the Kent State student protesters were shot dead. Dead."

Yep. It was sad. Point??

"Protesting a no win war"

Actually, I know about this, as I was there, both at Berkeley and at the University of Colorado (Berkeley By The Flatirons) protesting the same war. And I know that what we were all protesting was the IMAGE of the war as a no-win war, an IMAGE which history later showed us to be a false image, one cooked up by the Left and presented to a gullible America by radicals, including John Kerry as he lied under oath to Congress to try to undermine the conviction that we were doing the right thing.

"Protesting the draft of so many handsome young men and sending them to battle for what?"

Again, having been there, I can attest that not all of these young men were handsome---but then it's all about emotion, ain't it? But seriously, as one who was there, who was part of it all, the main objection to the draft was that it was scary and that most young men who waited to be drafted just preferred to hang around and get laid and get high. True philosophical objections to the war were thin on the ground, and most of those based on the skewed "information" presented by the propaganda machines.

"And yet we see ourselves right back there again. W acknowledged the Tet offensive and our situation in Iraq was similar."

This is the heart and soul of the post---this is the absolute proof of the steadfast inability or unwillingness of the Left to see facts when they are presented to them, explained to them, and even drawn out for them.

WE WON TET. We won every battle we engaged in, in Viet Nam. Why can't you guys get that? We never lost a battle, and Tet was a decisive victory which crippled the North.

The similarity, which only you ardent Lefties seem incapable of understanding, is that WE WERE WINNING yet we were undermined at home and forced to withdraw from a conflict in which we were rapidly approaching total victory because of the successful propagandizing of the American populace at home, and their subsequent loss of will to follow through.

Yes, there IS a comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam. It is clear, it is obvious, and it is not hard to grasp. In both wars, we went in with noble motivation. In both wars, we faced enemies and warfare of different natures than anything we had had to face before. In both wars, we adapted and prevailed and were winning. In both wars, we had a third front at home, dedicated to undermining the war effort through the use of a compliant media and the dissemination of outright lies about what was going on.

Regarding the war in Viet Nam, these efforts succeeded. The President is pointing out that we do not want the same thing to happen in this war, and that we should learn from our past.

But nice emoting, raker. Loved the touch about all the "handsome young men". But you were not only wrong wrong wrong, you were spouting garbage that has been disproved for decades, and any visit to any history book would set you straight. And the Left's dedication to disproven propaganda is one of the things that makes us have no respect for you.

And then there's Doug......

Doug said, in his first post, "My opposition to the Iraq war was more about my lack of faith in his and Rummy's competence..."

I responded with "He clearly bought into the demagoguery that Bush and Rumsfeld are dummies..."

See what I did? I responded to something Doug ACTUALLY SAID. (It's a conservative thing.) He questioned the competence of the two men, and I said I thought he had been swayed into his opinion through the demagoguery that they were incompetent.

But Doug pulls a 180 (to the left, of course) and replies: "It isn't demagoguery to believe that their plan has failed..."

But that's not what he said, and that's not what I said. His first comment indicated a projection of future failure based on his lack of confidence in their competence, while his second was a look back at what he thinks has already happened. And in the middle, I responded to his actual first comment, but he is responding to something I never said.

It's this lack of focus that makes debating Libs so hard.

And Doug whines: "Your assessment of Democrats is sad, wrong, and shameful..." Except I made no "assessment of Democrats", other than (in other threads) to make a clear delineation between the mainstream Democrats and the NDP, which is the group of radical thugs I think is trying to hijack a once great party.

I repeatedly say that while I do not agree with the Democratic platform (back when they had one) and have a philosophical bent toward a free market, voluntary philantrophy rather than government-imposed philantropy via confiscatory policies and redistribution of wealth, small government, and a strong national defense, when people present arguments for opposing political views I respect those views.

And I state, repeatedly, that I think most Democrats are decent, intelligent, and honest citizens who simply have a different view of government than mine.

But when I use the word Liberal, capital-L Liberal, I am not talking about Democrats. I am talking about the extreme radical New Democratic Party, the illiberal Liberals who have no real platform but hate and no real strategy but emotion-driven demagoguery.

And no, Clinton was not hated. He was a joke, and he was not respected. But if you go back and look at what was said about him, it was all---ALL--based on his own actual actions. Yeah, it was disapproving. Yeah, it was critical. But it was not invented. And it was not an unending litany of vile personal attacks.

No one attacked his father, or his mother, who was a drunk. His daughter got a free pass, and so, for the most part, did his drug-dealer (convicted) brother. No one attacked his religious beliefs. He got called on WHAT HE DID.

But Bush's GRANDFATHER did business with German businesses in the 1930's, more than half a century ago, and this got twisted into DOING BUSINESS WITH HITLER!!!!!! which got spun into Bush BEING Hitler. The insanity and viciousness and utter stupidity of the personal attacks on Bush are unequalled. His family, his appearance, his intelligence, his military service, his faith, his business past, his ranch, there has been some vile and vicious smear campaign against the man on every possible front, including many that have simply been invented. And I defy you or any Lib to come up with any personal attacks on Clinton that came anywhere close.

I always have to laugh when I read the wingnut rants about the "insane leftists". And by "insane leftists" you seem to mean anyone who doesn't agree with the failed Bush/GOP agenda .. be that the Iraq mess, the US gov't spending mess, the Katrina mess, the failed search for OBL mess, the Congressional corruption/sex scandals/loobyist mess(es) ... I mean the list is getting hard to keep track of. Nuts on the far side of anything are just that ... nuts. But they make up a small % of our country. You folks need to realize that its the track record of failure over the past 6 yrs that is coming home to roost. It's the competence, stupid.

Warriornation wrote: "Those that can...do! Those that can't...teach."

Those who can't teach...blog. :D Anyway!

"I have two graduate degrees, both M.S....I find these same people you fawn over to be some of the more unintelligent folks to walk the planet. These folks often cannot tie their shoes let alone survive on their own in society. They are usually the weakest of the weak and thus gravitate to the left because they need things like tenure to survive."

Then you know some pretty sad professors. The ones I know aren't like that. However, your personal experience (or your impressions of your experience) don't serve as proof of anything. Neither do mine.

"...They need their cocoon bubble like protection at a university to function at all."

OK, you're sounding a bit extreme, now. Did professors kill you puppy through gross negligence or something? Why are you so dead-set against professors in general? And please don't give me platitudes for justification.

"You may coddle them all you wish and praise them for their intelligence."

I do not coddle, but I do praise hard-working, intelligent people. Better than praising...well, lazy, unintelligent people I suppose. Like it or not, our political system (let alone education system) needs a highly educated group of experts. I'll vote for Johnny from the farm for my representative (I come from a farming family), but I'm glad he has experts in foreign policy, energy policy, economic, security, military, and so forth, that he can go to -- either on staff or on public service payroll or at think tanks or even (gasp!) at university. Recently my local conservative Republican representative talked extensively with a poli sci professor at the local university. He does this every so often. Maybe we just have better legislators and professors here than you do...our conservatives don't seem to have your attitude and our professors don't have the attitude you attribute to them.

And with two grad degrees, I hope you can come up with a better criticism than, "They're hopeless in real life -- they're useless in society; can't even tie their shoes!" Even as far as strawmen go, that's pretty pathetic.

"Me, I live in the real world and these folks do not."

Oh, well. How's the weather over there?

"And I know that what we were all protesting was the IMAGE of the war as a no-win war, an IMAGE which history later showed us to be a false image, one cooked up by the Left and presented to a gullible America by radicals..."

Yeah, because we all know that we actually won the war and left victorious...wait...

Well, if we did 'appear' to lose then it had to be under a Democrat as president right? Wait...

Kevin...Conservatives have NOT been in charge the last 6 years so that is NOT FACT.

Do not EVER associate Republicans with Conservatives. There are so many damn limp wristed Republicans out there right now. RINOS galore.

Just as there are many Democrats that are not liberal. There is a difference.

I'm not crazy about many of the GOPs moves, but I'm old enough to have lived through Carter, Clinton, etc and saw that their moves are incredibly bad.

Comedian Lewis Black has a great joke.

A Republican stands up and says, 'I got a really bad idea!' and then a Democrat stands up and says, '...and I can make it shittier!'"

You make an interesting point. In fact, since 1968, the GOP has possessed the White House 70% of the time and made 86% of the Supreme Court appointments - and you have ghad control of the COngress since 1994.

Given those overwhelming realities, it is clearly possible to lay at the feet of the GOP all of the failures and incpmpetencies; all of the corruption, criminality and cupidity; all the waste, theft and mismanagement of taxpayers dollars -- and, in fact, every thing wrong with American society today.

You make an interesting point. In fact, since 1968, the GOP has possessed the White House 70% of the time and made 86% of the Supreme Court appointments - and has had control of the COngress since 1994.

Given those overwhelming realities, it is clearly possible to lay at the feet of the GOP all of the failures and incompetencies; all of the corruption, criminality and cupidity; all the waste, theft and mismanagement of taxpayers dollars -- and, in fact, every single thing wrong with American society today.

Chris,
Sorry, I didn’t realize you had answered me.

You point out that experience in academia is anecdotal, and then go on to concede that I may be right. I should let this alone but it’s not in my nature. My experience is quantified by numerous inductive researches that substantiate the liberal bias in education. Further, these biases tend to become over-simplified bumper-sticker logic when disseminated to masses via the classroom.

I’ll elucidate; while at first surprised that you brought up Dr. Sen, in your context I see where you are going. As a fiscal analyst I’m familiar with the economist Sen’s theories, and I’m aware of the governmental implications. Whereas Sen wrote of the inherent inequalities within the lines of distribution, owing, no doubt to the political implications of the fairness of distribution, his writings focus on equal treatment via the political process. This is hardly a ringing endorsement that equal outcome is not the desired goal. John Rawls was, in his writings as inconsistent as Maslow in his assertions, without explanation, he agreed with Nozick regarding the likelihood that welfare states become self-perpetuating and because, not in spite of, as he previously wrote, because persons are emotionally driven to accept inequality if it is their best interest. Hand-outs beget laziness!

When dealing with the complex intricacies of the Sen Theory, academicians tend to teach to the resultant rather than to the methodology. Distribution, by its very nature is inherently unequal; the results are, therefore unequal. If we level the playing field we will achieve equal outcomes. GIGO.

As to the “exception to the rule” argument; again independent studies confirm that, especially in the liberal studies areas of higher education, the bias is tilted toward conclusions in agreement with the teacher. In this discipline, as you pointed out, the mastery is deduced by the ability to form the argument, and the ability to analyze the argument. When the actual human nature element is factored in, how, exactly do you explain to the professor that you followed his logic, framed the study on solid academic basis and came to a different conclusion? Once explaining that the professor’s cognitive ability is flawed, do you honestly expect academic accolades for this?

This doesn’t describe kindergarten teachers; this is rife in all levels of academia. Just look at the local high school; have they not lowered the standards such that everyone receives a diploma? Have they not restructured testing so that those not able to pass on their own receive “special treatment” such that all students pass every test? While teaching Accounting, business and marketing in a public high school, I was instructed that any student deemed “special” was to be given the written exams to take to the “Resource Center” where the questions would be read and explained to the student. Failing to find an acceptable answer, the resource teacher would call me to have me “explain the answer” to the student so they could correctly answer the question. This is inductive reasoning, but hardly anecdotal.

Once outside of the Ivory Towers, graduates find that in the business world, it’s not the actions you take, nor the thought behind your theory that counts; it is results. Results are a foreign concept in the world of higher education. Results are an anathema to the liberal.

Chris,
Sorry, I didn’t realize you had answered me.

You point out that experience in academia is anecdotal, and then go on to concede that I may be right. I should let this alone but it’s not in my nature. My experience is quantified by numerous inductive researches that substantiate the liberal bias in education. Further, these biases tend to become over-simplified bumper-sticker logic when disseminated to masses via the classroom.

I’ll elucidate; while at first surprised that you brought up Dr. Sen, in your context I see where you are going. As a fiscal analyst I’m familiar with the economist Sen’s theories, and I’m aware of the governmental implications. Whereas Sen wrote of the inherent inequalities within the lines of distribution, owing, no doubt to the political implications of the fairness of distribution, his writings focus on equal treatment via the political process. This is hardly a ringing endorsement that equal outcome is not the desired goal. John Rawls was, in his writings as inconsistent as Maslow in his assertions, without explanation, he agreed with Nozick regarding the likelihood that welfare states become self-perpetuating and because, not in spite of, as he previously wrote, because persons are emotionally driven to accept inequality if it is their best interest. Hand-outs beget laziness!

When dealing with the complex intricacies of the Sen Theory, academicians tend to teach to the resultant rather than to the methodology. Distribution, by its very nature is inherently unequal; the results are, therefore unequal. If we level the playing field we will achieve equal outcomes. GIGO.

As to the “exception to the rule” argument; again independent studies confirm that, especially in the liberal studies areas of higher education, the bias is tilted toward conclusions in agreement with the teacher. In this discipline, as you pointed out, the mastery is deduced by the ability to form the argument, and the ability to analyze the argument. When the actual human nature element is factored in, how, exactly do you explain to the professor that you followed his logic, framed the study on solid academic basis and came to a different conclusion? Once explaining that the professor’s cognitive ability is flawed, do you honestly expect academic accolades for this?

This doesn’t describe kindergarten teachers; this is rife in all levels of academia. Just look at the local high school; have they not lowered the standards such that everyone receives a diploma? Have they not restructured testing so that those not able to pass on their own receive “special treatment” such that all students pass every test? While teaching Accounting, business and marketing in a public high school, I was instructed that any student deemed “special” was to be given the written exams to take to the “Resource Center” where the questions would be read and explained to the student. Failing to find an acceptable answer, the resource teacher would call me to have me “explain the answer” to the student so they could correctly answer the question. This is inductive reasoning, but hardly anecdotal.

Once outside of the Ivory Towers, graduates find that in the business world, it’s not the actions you take, nor the thought behind your theory that counts; it is results. Results are a foreign concept in the world of higher education. Results are an anathema to the liberal.

Almiranta-

Much of what you said saddens me because your hatred is so obvious. You would like to believe that Liberals such as me are stupid, but you probably know better somewhere deep down.

As for Clinton, I give you Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Rush, Medved, Mikey Reagan, etc. Coulter has accused him of being a serial rapist. Everything about Whitewater was found to be baseless. Troopergate was fake, Brock said so in his book. You say he was a joke, but history will disagree with you. Do you really believe your boy GWB will be looked upon with favor? I honestly don't know. Truman looked pretty bad at one point and now he's revered. That _may_ happen with Bush, although he's pretty far off from Truman. But stranger things have happened. Your people tried to get rid of Clinton and failed. It failed because most Americans knew he was a good leader and did a good job, in spite of his sex life.

Anyway, I've said about all I can say on this topic. If you want to pretend like the 90's never happened the way they happened, so be it. You know the truth. It's out there. Denying it doesn't alter it one bit.

Bush and Rummy bought into a military ideology of small forces and tactical air strikes that won the war quickly, but was always thought by most to be inadequate to pacify a country like Iraq. And disbanding the Iraqi army was idiotic. Imagine if we had done that with the Wehrmacht. Disastrous. Your complete inability to find fault with this president makes a lot of what you say devoid of credibility in my opinion, which I'm sure is not of importance to you.

It's all very sad, but again, I reassert my commitment to be nice to you people when my party is back in power. And even though you won't admit it when they do great things for the poor or other groups of people conservatives don't see fit to have government tend to.

You deny the hatred of the Radical Right, yet look at the title of this page. "Why are liberals insane?" Must be because Bush is a Christian. Yeah, no liberals could be Christians....so sad.

George Bush is a polarizing figure because he is a failure who can't see that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't divine illumation. It's an oncoming freight train. Read about his admission that Iraq maybe like Vietnam, and American generals concede failure to reign in violence in Bagdhad.

Why did you pick 1968 as your starting point for the Executive Branch and 1994 for ½ of the legislative?

Try this since 1960;
• Democrats have held the Executive 43% to the Republicans 57%
• Congress was completely controlled by the Democrats 91% to the Republicans 8%
• The House of Representatives has been held by Democrats 75% to the Republicans 25%
• The Senate has been held by Democrats 75% to the Republicans 25%.

Or this,
• Since 1994 the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch 57% to the Republicans 43%
• The Democrats Controlled the Senate 71% to the Republicans 29%.

Given that I can clearly demonstrate that liberals have selective memories, and are awful at statistical analysis.

Bane, what a great post, and this one single sentence sums up the biggest single problem I have with modern Liberalism (as opposed to classic liberalism):

Results are an anathema to the liberal.

Tom,

What Baker said isn't what you critics of the effort say he said - its another Downing Street Memo where you're reading in your defeatism and anti-Bush fanaticism.

And as for the battle in Baghdad - its actually going quite well, as you would know if you would just skip the MSM/Daily Kos coverage and actually got to Centcom and read about what is happening. There has, indeed, been a high spike in violence - but that is just our Islamo-fascists giving us a taste of the "religion of peace" as they do every Ramadan. Once again, you're looking at transient information and applying it to the whole effort. What will you say when violence tapers off? Oh, I know: you'll likely go back to some story of American war crimes. I've noticed, even though you seemingly haven't, that the cycle is for spikes in violence to result in proclamations of failure while reductions in violence result in accusations of war crimes. You critics of the war are entirely predictable - I know what you'll say before you say it.

As it turns out, I just noticed some lefty talking head on TV about 20 minutes ago going on and on about how we have to surrender in Iraq (oh, sorry, "redeploy") in order to win the war...that, in a nutshell, is your untenable position.

Bane, thanks again for the response! First and foremost, I agree with your criticisms of lowered standards in the education system. I disagree with your leap to connect bad teaching directly to liberalism. I know one teacher who teaches English as a Second Language to kids from other countries in an American school. Because of the "conservative" No Child Left Behind guidelines, these kids are forced to take tests in English. It doesn't matter if they just moved here and have only been in ESL for say, two months. These are people who are learning the language of our country and who are being screwed by the education system because of misguided conservative policies.

Now, here's my idea: Bad teaching is bad teaching, regardless of political orientation. There are bad liberal teachers who don't prepare students for the real world. There are bad conservative teachers (and bad conservative policies) that don't prepare students for life after school. We need good teachers, and I think we need a better education system that will allow us to compete with the other countries in the world who are threatening to surpass us - if they haven't already - in highly-educated young people.

"Once outside of the Ivory Towers, graduates find that in the business world, it’s not the actions you take, nor the thought behind your theory that counts; it is results."

Tell that to the police officer who can't enter evidence into a case because she obtained it illegally, or the CEO who increased his company's stock price by cooking the books. However, I agree with your general point.

"Results are an anathema to the liberal."

And all the successful liberal businessmen of the world just give you a perplexed look.

Mark-

Your inane vitriol aside, not to mention your lack of consistency, what most of us Liberals are calling for is a change in course. Some of us want more troops to finish the illegal pre-emptive war that we started. Most of us realize that if we stay as things are, we will keep losing. We don't want to lose, no matter what you believe. If you think we hate our country, that's on you. What we want is for people to stop dying. It's sad that people like you don't seem to value the lives of our troops or the lives of Iraqi babies. But that's the Radical Religious Right for you. Unborn fetuses are more important than dead Iraqi babies that have already been born.

What my party wants is a change. Either we finish it right with more troops, or we leave. One or the other. You choose. The status quo is a failure and your blindness to that is pathetic.

Ah, so because it's Ramadan, it's OK for there to be an increase in violence? And, I thought the idea of curbing violence is being able to stop it. Major General William Caldwell is "disheartened" at the level of violence in Iraq and said security measure have not met expectations, despite some focused successes.

I guess Bush flew in Abizaid to Washington to congratulate him on how well the security situation in Baghdad is going, eh?

Even Bush is admitting things are going well right now:

Bush told The AP the U.S. is "constantly adjusting our tactics so we can achieve the objectives and right now, it's tough."

It's astonishing how you're able to ignore reality.

No Child Left Behind doesn’t have an English immersion standard. But, if you want to discuss the success of the English immersion mandate here in California I’d be happy to do so; multilingual teaching was a disaster, and the kids from ESL homes are learning faster and scoring better since we (in California) voted out that inefficient system. The only ones objecting to the successes are the ESL teachers that find themselves.

“The CEO who increased his company's stock price by cooking the books”? You must be talking about the successful liberal businessman of the world that just gave me the perplexed look.

Hey, that cop may have obtained the evidence illegally (unlawfully) but at least he feels good about it.

Doug,

Nothing short of victory will do - and anything which even so much as breaths lack of confidence in victory only feeds in to enemy propaganda and makes them fight all the harder. Wars start when both sides are convinced of victory, they end when at least one side is convinced that victory is impossible - and this is no matter how fanatical one side is. Right now, given what the terrorist leaders hear coming from the Democrats, they are CONVINCED that after November 7th the United States will pull out and leave them the victory. Had you on the left been just a little more sensible - just a little bit patriotic - then the enemy would only be convinced that, come what may on November 7th, defeat is staring the terrorists in the face.

You can try to parse it and spin it all you want - but "cut and run" is what the whole world, especially the terrorists, think your plan is.

Tom,

Once again, you are reading what you want in to it - you want us to lose, because that would validate your worldview, and thus any statement made by anyone is twisted automatically in to an admission of defeat. I read the same statements and understand that its a hard fight, but we're winning.

No, Mark, you said:

"And as for the battle in Baghdad - its actually going quite well"

Here's another assessment from the security advisor to the Iraqi president:

"The Iraqi president's security adviser has said Iraqi forces trying to improve security in Baghdad are under funded, badly trained and poorly equipped.

Wafiq al-Samarra'i said that sometimes the insurgents had better weapons.

US President George W Bush said the situation in Iraq was "tough" and that he would consult senior US generals to see if a change in tactics was needed.

Their comments come a day after the US military said a two-month operation in Baghdad had failed to reduce violence.

Launched in June, Operation Together Forward is a joint US and Iraqi security drive in which thousands of extra troops have been deployed in Baghdad.

The Iraqi troops are so poorly armed to the point that sometimes the terrorists and death squads have better weapons

"Circumstances are responsible for the plan's failure," said Staff Maj-Gen Wafiq al-Samarra'i, the Iraqi presidential adviser for security affairs, during an interview with the BBC Arabic Service.

"The state revenues are not enough to safeguard security in the whole of Baghdad, with its seven million inhabitants and 2,500 sq km.

"The Iraqi troops are so poorly armed to the point that sometimes the terrorists and death squads have better weapons," he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6071258.stm

So, you're saying "going quite good" while a guy in charge of the situation is saying the plan's a failure...

Just a blatant example of you spouting BS. It's nice to be able to show it so clearly.

And don't tell me what my motivations are. They ain't close to what you believe and it makes you look desperate... falsely accusing me of wanting the US to "lose" in Iraq while ignoring facts.

But, once again, when facts are on your side, you ignore them and attack the person you're in a back-and-forth with. Great Catholic you are.

Should be "when facts AREN'T on your side."

Tom,

So says the relentlessly anti-American BBC...for the other side of the story:

Iraqi Government fighting violence

Friday, 20 October 2006

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s governmental leaders are rising to confront "an array of complicated issues" amid a spike in insurgent violence, a senior U.S. military officer said Oct. 19.

"The U.S. and Coalition leadership commends this perseverance, while the Multi-National Force-Iraq continues to assess and revise our strategy and tactics to support this government" in an ever-changing, dynamic environment, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, told reporters at a Baghdad news conference.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently announced the formation of a special committee to address the country’s illegal militia issue, Caldwell said.

The Iraqi Government, he added, is also seeking to reform its Security Ministries. In fact, the Iraqi Government reassigned a number of leaders of the National Police on Oct. 16.

“Although the leadership at the division level has changed, the National Police continued to prove itself as a capable, and viable civil force," Caldwell said.

Caldwell commended the Iraqi Military and Police efforts in combating the insurgency. The Iraqi Security Force is finding “a good number” of weapons caches throughout Iraq. That’s because Iraqi forces are knowledgeable about their areas of operation, Caldwell said, and are growing in size and professionalism.

Caldwell cited a recent joint Iraqi and U.S. Marine operation in Anbar province resulting in the detention of more than 35 suspected insurgents and the discovery of thousands of hidden weapons.

That operation, he said, collected more than 11,000 pieces of weapons and ordnance between Oct. 7 and Oct. 13, including much material suitable for making Improvised Explosive Devices.

Discovery of weapons caches in Iraq has increased over the past few months, Caldwell said, noting 170 caches were found in July, 190 in August, and 220 in September.

"Already this month, 144 caches have been found," Caldwell said.

And the Iraqi Security Forces is continuing to grow in numbers, as well as in capability, Caldwell said. More than 312,000 Iraqi Soldiers and Police have been trained and equipped by the Coalition Force.

Caldwell pointed to the Iraqi government's recruiting plan to bring more than 30,000 new Iraqi troops to serve in troublesome Anbar province by May. And more than 600 Iraqi Police recruits, the general noted, are slated to graduate this week and begin work in the troubled province.

In February, 3,800 Iraqi Police worked out of 14 active Iraqi Police stations in three of the nine districts in Anbar province, Caldwell said. Today, there are 33 police stations operating in eight districts, he noted, with more than 8,000 trained Iraqi Police.

Caldwell acknowledged there's been an increase in insurgent violence since the start of Ramadan in late September. That's consistent, he said, with similar spikes in enemy activity that have occurred during the month-long Muslim observance in the past two years.

"The violence is indeed disheartening," Caldwell said, noting there's been a 22-percent increase in insurgent attacks in Baghdad during the first few weeks of this year's Ramadan observance. But Operation Together Forward has made a difference, and has helped to reduce the amount of sectarian violence in the specific Baghdad neighborhoods. Still, he acknowledged, it hasn't caused a reduction of the overall level of violence in the city.

Meanwhile, "we are working very closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best to re-focus our efforts," Caldwell said.

That goal "is achievable," Caldwell emphasized, "with a combination of both tough security measures by coalition and Iraqi Security Forces and a political process that recognizes that 11 to 12 million Iraqis voted for a unity government."

(Courtesy of American Forces Press Service)

The facts are on my side - the only thing you've got on your side is anti-American defeatists and terrorist apologists.

Tom,

And I'm actually trying to help you out here - if you will just STOP reading gloom and doom and actually have a little faith in your nation and your nation's magnificent armed-forces, then things will start to brighten up for you...and if you could even have just a smidge of faith in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are voluntarily fighting on OUR SIDE against a few thousands rag-tag terrorists fighting against us, then you're whole view of the world might change.

Try a little Christian faith, Tom, it really does work.

Mark, are you insane?

The BBC QUOTED the iraqi security adviser as saying his troops are poorly trained, are poorly equipped and that the plan to secure the city has failed. Did the liberal BBC force him to say those things?

Bush flew in Abizaid to Washington to talk about how to stop escalating violence.

Caldwell is saying the violence is disheartening and that the security plan did not reach it's goal of securing Baghdad. He's said they are trying to figure out to change course to best secure the city.

Remember, this started when I said the plan that you highly touted wasn't going so well.

You disputed that by saying things are going quite well in Baghdad. You are ignoring reality.

Anyone else on here want to side with Mark on this? Almiranta, Spook, A-10? Anyone?

Tom,

Lets see...trust the BBC, or trust the United States armed forces? Gee, thats a tough call...

When I say its going quite well, its in the same sense that Normandy was going quite well 10 days after we landed...even though the fight was tough and there seemed no break at all in the enemy will to fight. Its going quite well in the sense that things were going quite well on the second day of Gettysburg. Its going quite well in the sense that things were going quite well in the Pusan Perimeter. Grasp the fact, Tom: its a war. You know - fighting, killing, nastiness, heartbreak...not a nice thing to have happen, ya know?

I'll give you some benchmarks - if any of these thigns start to happen, then we've got problems:

1. Iraqi PM assasinated.

2. Unable to fly out of Baghdad.

3. Oil production drops permanently below 50% of pre-liberation levels.

4. Instead of GDP growth, GDP contraction.

5. Inflation rising rather than falling.

6. Electricity production falling rather than rising.

7. Numbers of Iraqi troops declining rather than rising.

Get the picture? If things were going to heck in a handbasket as your sources say, then all of these indicators would negative - but they're not.

Please stop paying attention to gloom and doom reports and for the love of God don't watch any television news of the war...

The facts are on my side

Hilarious. Still think we found WMDs, Noonan? The facts ahve been smacking you in the head; you choose to ignore them. That's your problem, but please don't expect people who know better to join you in deliberate ignorance.

By the way, as long as we're talking strategy, what does al Qaeda want the US strategy to be? Stay the course. No wonder Osama did Bush a solid by releasing that tape prior to the 2004 elections--he knew he could count on Bush to play right into his hands. And so it has been. Sad that in your zealous myopia, you advocate giving al Qaeda what it wants.

Mark-

You're being deliberately obtuse I assume.

"Nothing short of victory will do" Fine. But at what point are we going to admit that our current troop level isn't enough to get that victory? At what point will you people stop blindly accepting this failed policy?

If we keep the troop levels the same, we will lose. We lost Vietnam. We might lose this. It sucks. I wish we could find a way to make Iraq the shining beacon of democracy. But they don't want it the way we have it here. They want a radical Shia government. That's their choice to choose, if it's a real democracy. And if you look at what Democrats ACTUALLY say as opposed to what you have been fed by your demagogues like Rush and Hannity, you would see that my party is as varied as yours is. Bob Corker is flip flopping. Shays is flip flopping. Every smart person realizes that what we are doing now is losing the war. And this is all aside from the fact that Bin Laden lives. If you could be honest, and I don't know that you can, you would admit that if a President Gore had let bin Laden get away, he'd be impeached by now and President Lieberman would be in charge.

At any rate, there's more to this election than the war. And when my party is in power, I hope we are able to reach out even to the hateful people in your party and unify the nation. God knows your beloved "Christian" president has divided us enough.

If we have a Dem Congress and President in the next few years and they balance the budget, will you give them credit for it?

Posted by: DougW

If the dems balance the budget...?

If pigs fly will they have wings or just turbofarts?

Catholic faith, Mark? Catholic faith is “I believe in the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, all that is seen and unseen…: you know the rest.

It’s not, I believe in the Sunnis and Shi’tes, that our current policy in Iraq is right and good and will help us end the scourge of terrorism around the globe.”

No, it’s certainly not that. Especially considering the Catholic Church is against the war in Iraq.

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected
by Mark and Louise Zwick
The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II.
From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again!
John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.
In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.
John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

It’s telling that you apply your catholic faith to a war that Catholicism rejects. You’re putting your faith in Bush and his policies before and in direct contradiction of your Catholic faith,

Then, you’re dumb enough to tell me to try a little Catholic faith?

I’m all for optimism. But optimism without any basis in fact is delusion.

SeesThroughIt,

Read it an weep.

Perhaps you would like the authorities to dump the 500+ munitions filled with sarin and mustard gas in your front yard. Then would you believe?

For your information, since you refuse to do the research yourself, there are still about 30,000 WMD munitions still unaccounted for (according to UNSCOM). There are still 3,000 tons of WMD precursors unaccounted for. There are still 300 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for. Amongst the 300 tons of WMD agents, are 1.5 tons of VX. 10 mg of VX is enough to kill a human. Do the math (I'd do it for you in case you are mathematically challenged: 10mg x 100 mg per gram, times 28 grams per ounce, times 16 ounces per pound, times 2000 pounds per ton, times 1.5. That's 10 x 100 x 28 x 16 x 200 x 1.5 = 134,400,000). That's the number of people who could be killed by the missing VX alone.

A-10,

This is what the the Iraqi Survey Group had to say about those munitions:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

And the defense department said these were “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

They also said they were likely not dangerous because the of their age (made prior to 1991).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

TS,

"And the defense department said these were “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”"

That's right. The remaining 30,000 munistions that UNSCOM says are unaccounted for are still out there.

Further, I agree that they are unusable, however the sarin they contain is still lethal. And isn't the liberal mantra that "Iraq did not have WMD"? They did. Your "_DS" is preventing you from admitting it. There are 500 examples they did, even if they were not of the operational variety. Saddam was to have destroyed them all. He didn't. He probably couldn't have, even if he wanted to. He had literally hundreds of ammo dumps scattered across the 160,000+ sq miles of Iraq.

Where are the rest of the 30,000 munitions?Security minded Americans want to know.

A-10,

As you say, these unaccounted for WMDs are of the same era of those found in June... "unusable" as you say. UNSCOM was not able to confirm that these were destroyed. That doesn't mean they weren't and there is testimony from Iraqis that all WMDs were, in fact, destroyed. Also, if you look at what I posted earlier, the "ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

So, no, UNSCOM was not able to confirm those munitions were destroyed, but our government believes they were.

Read your own link, A-10.

"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

What's it like to live in craven fear, A-10?

Back OT: Why is the Left Insane?

I don't know. Maybe because they rely too much on a MSM who distorts facts, fabricates stories, and discloses classified information, all to advance a political agenda. Maybe because they accept conspiracy theories, radical ideas, and junk science. Maybe because they have been subjected to years of indoctrination by liberal educators.

But they must be insane.

You must be insane if you think that it is patriotic to expose the existance of classified intelligence programs, while trying to undermine a Presidency and our national security.

You must be insane if you think that terrorist's rights take precedence over our security.

You must be insane if you think that a stock market that has increased in value by 65% since October of 2002, that 12 straight months of 3-4% GDP growth, that 6.6 million new jobs, that 4.6% unemployment, that low interest rates, that low inflation, and record home ownership is evidence of the "worst economy since the Great Depression".

You must be insane if you think that we intervened in Iraq to steal the oil, since we haven't done so.

You must be insane if you think that if a member of the opposing party exhibits unacceptable behaviour, then resigns, the story should be on the front pages and the nightly news for weeks, but if one of your own exhibits even more unacceptable behaviour, they should receive three standing ovations, be awarded coveted committee seats, and be reelected six times.

You must be insane if you think that if a member of the opposing party accepts bribes, he should immediately resign (which they have), but if one of your own is caught with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer, he should not be asked to resign, but, instead, he supported in his reelection bid.

You must be insane if you think if is perfectly fine to kill an unborn baby, but it is not OK to execute a convicted mass-murderer.

You must be insane if you think a former Grand Kleagle of the KKK belongs in the Senate and is considered the "Conscience of the Senate". You must be insane if you think someone who drives a car off a bridge, while drunk and without a valid driver's licesne, leaves his passenger to die, and fails to report the accident until the next morning, belongs in the Senate, let alone on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

You must be insane if you think that Global Warming, if it is actually occurring and if we actually have any control over it, is a greater threat to our national security than Global Terrorism.

You must be insane if you think that the ends, gaining and maintaining political power, justify the means, even if it jeopardizes our national security.

You must be insane if you think that raising taxes is good for the economy, when history has shown that the opposite is true, it suppress the economy, while tax cuts not only boost the economy, they shift more of the tax burden to those in the higher tax brackets.

You must be insane if you think the Republican Party has a culture of corruption, while the Democrats have their Senate Minority Leader hiding million dollar land deals, their House Minority Leader guilty of accepting illegal camgaign donations, and have Congressmen under investigation of taking bribes.

You must be insane if you think that your freedom of speach is being violated and your right to dissent is being suppressed while you pontificate on the Senate floor, on national TV, or on the silver screen.

You must be insane if you think that opposing all of the tools our intelligence agencies are using to combat global terrorism is helping keep America safe.

You must be insane if you think that the Constitution says that there is a right to abortion and that there is separation of church and state.

You must be insane if you think that the American Civil Liberties Union actually is interested in protecting civil liberties.

You must be insane if you think Democrats believe in democracy. They don't, they believe in Socialism.

You must be insane if you think the Bush Administration or the Israeli Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks.

You must be insane if you think liberals believe in freedom of speach and expression. Try posting a comment on DU or Kos as a conservative. You will be banned within minutes. Try posting a comment on B4B or one of the hundreds of conservative blogs as a liberal. You can post to your heart's content.

I have only one conclusion: you must be insane if you are a liberal.

It's like clockwork. Once an argument is refuted using facts, a person on the right pulls back into a rant attacking liberals.

TS,

"That doesn't mean they weren't and there is testimony from Iraqis that all WMDs were, in fact, destroyed."

To turn the tables on you, cite please.

"ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

Again, cite please.

Do you realize how contradictory your quote is? The ISG has no proof they were destroyed. Throughout the period of UN inspections, undeclared chemical munitions were being discovered almost daily. This was the period of 1991 to 1998.

Each and every time the Iraqis released a "Full and Final" declaration of the WMD prgrams, the UN inspectors found additional undeclared WMD.

So tell me exactly how the ISG came to the conclusion that they were all destroyed when the Inspectors were still finding them?

The bottom line is: when dealing with national security, which you obviously don't have any experience with, you err of the side of caution and safety. You don't assume they were destroyed unless you have 100% concrete proof. Otherwise, a chemical munition shows up being used as an IED, and US soldiers are in at threat.

That's why liberals cannot be trusted with our national security. You believed appeasement and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue would keep us safe. You believed the North Koreans wouldn't violated the Agreed Framework. They did, now they have nukes. You believed that Saddam would play "nice-gy" and not persue WMD and domination in the Middle East. You were wrong. Let the adults deal with the threat of Global Terrorim. You children of the left can go back to playing in the sandbox.

TS,

"It's like clockwork. Once an argument is refuted using facts, a person on the right pulls back into a rant attacking liberals."

Just staying OT. The subject of which is the insanity of the left. Thanks for playing along and reinforcing our points.

"So tell me exactly how the ISG came to the conclusion that they were all destroyed when the Inspectors were still finding them?"

Here, read for yourself:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_aa.pdf

TS,

I wish you'd take the time to learn to do html links.

From the start:

"Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable"

So the ISG beleived that Saddam was going to resume his WMD programs. Further justification for changing the regime in Iraq.

"The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile;"

So the ISG never inspected the entire stockpile. So they really don't know if there were WMD in other ammo dumps. This is not something that you can use polling techniques to determine. If Saddam had a wisespread WMD program, producing 10's of thousands of munitions, the search needs to continue. We have already found 500+ chemical munitions. The prudent thing to do is to continue to search until the rest are found. We are talking about some of the most lethal chemical on earth. 10 mg of VX will kill you. That's 1/2800th of an ounce. This VX is still out there.

Somemore evidence of why intervention is Iraq was correct:

"Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented."

"Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions."

"ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefi ngs, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months."

"ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds."

"ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations."

What you have is admission that the ISG did an incomplete search for additional WMD, but tried to exprapolate their results to cover the entire 164,000+ sq miles of Iraq. What you have is evidence that Iraq was intending to re-constitute their WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Oh, by the way, that would be a violation of the UN Resolutions. What you have is a report, constrained by time and scope, which admits that they think there aren't any more WMD (even though at least 500 more have been found).

I'm sorry, but "I hope there isn't any more WMD, but we're not sure" isn't an acceptable answer. Not when we are dealing with terrorists who would fly airplanes into skyscrapers. If they could get and use WMD, you know they would.

A-10. You must be insane to believe that through misreprestation and the bearing of false witness rational observers are going to regard you as sane. Thanks for the desparate attempt at humor though. I needed a good chuckle, even if you seem like to indulge in black humor.

Let me take one of your silly GOP talking points as an example.

"You must be insane if you think that Global Warming, if it is actually occurring and if we actually have any control over it, is a greater threat to our national security than Global Terrorism.

If global warming is not occuring, then where have all the glaciers gone? Current scientific evidence for global warming, as evaluated within the scientific community is an accepted fact. That the current episode of global warming is largely human induced, the result of increasing CO2 emmissions, is also largely accepted by the scientific community. It is now only the the magnitude of the numerous effects remain subject to debate. What is currently known is that the effects are much more pronounced and accelerating at a faster pace than most scientists had originally predicted. As is often the case, the effects are multiplicative rather than simply additive. Likewise, the econommic and sociological consequences are now widely regarded likely to be much larger than originally supposed, if one accepts the estimates of best current computer models based on observed effects.

Currently, active terrorists worldwide are likely to number about 50,000 maximum (unless of course you are prepared to argue that all those world-wide not supporting the Bush adgenda are terrorists). While 150,000 insurgents in Iraq are facing us in that country, probably the vast majority of these are recruited from the general Sunni and Shiite populations and would likely not engage, at least in the near term, in anti-US military activity if the US left Iraq. Figures of similar magnitude and effect are likely true for Afganistan. Thus, I find the argument that perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 rather poorly technologically equipped and poorly educated insurgents in either country are more of a threat to us than the million plus man army in North Korea now armed with nuclear weapons as simply not credible. However, the threat even of the former plus the latter is small relative to the threat of a 10 degree warming of the global average temperature, which is now what we are on track for by the year 2100. First, such a warming will likely result in the loss of water sources for hundreds of millions of people and make tens of millions of hectares of currently farmed land unsuitable for agriculture. Second, world economies continue to rely heavily on the burning of fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate to sustain current economic activity and thus we as a species are are poorly prepared to reverse the effects of CO2 increases over the next 50 to 100 years given current technologies, even if we launched an well-coordinated effort by all nations and political parties to do so immediately. Third the sea level rise that would occur would result in hundred of billions of dollars of economic losses due to inundation alone. I doubt that 2 million fighters could produce such a result, even if the DPRK launched all the nuclear weapons at their disposal. In fact, World War II with all its carnage would hardly compare in effect. We can only pray that natural variation in global warming does not also increase during this time of human induced climate change, or even the most dire projections by current science would be way too optimistic.

While you can continue to bear false witness, just like believing in the flat earth theory, this does not alter the reality of the predicament humanity currently finds itself in.

But I guess I must be insane to be so liberal as to worry about just one of many socio-political and environmental clamities that face us. Instead, perhaps like you I should simply write my congressman (assuming that he will actually read my letter) and demand that we increase military spending for the war in Iraq ten to twenty fold and call for a resinstitution of the military draft. Clearly, 100 billion a year in spending and roughly 150,000 troops is nowhere near enough. After all, we can simply continue to print the money we need and just ignore all the other serious challenges that unintended consequences of the Bush foreign and economic policies are bringing us. I'm sure the Chinese will continue to be happy to buy our debt as we choose to bury ourselves in fantasy.

Don't worry, I won't raise your taxes, just your prices.

Best regards.

One thing that always puzzles me is how the Radical Right always calls us liberals wimpy, when our party is full of the Murthas, Gores, Kerrys, and Clelands...all men who served valiantly. And the RadCons drool over Bush, Cheney, Frist, Wolfie, Perle and the other men who saw fit to sit out that last noble war, Vietnam.

Curious.

DougW,

I'm puzzled as well. How is it that the "right" is radical. Because most of the beliefs of the "right" are in line with a majority of Americans:

Abortion - 66% believe there should be stricter limits, should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman's life, or should not be permitted at all. (Pew Research, July 06)

Gun control - 63% believe there should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns. (The Gallup Poll, Oct. 11-14, 2004)

Death Penalty - 65% favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 22-25, 2006)

Taxes - 54% believe the tax cuts should be made permanent. (Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 15-17, 2005)

Immigration - 54% believe we should build a fence along the Mexican border. (CNN Poll, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 2006)

Gay Marriage - 56% oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. (Pew Research Center, July 6-19, 2006)

Flag Burning - 73% think burning the American flag should be illegal. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006)

How can conservative beliefs which are in line with mainstream America be radical, unless all of mainstream America is radical.

While I respect (mostly) all those who have served in the military (I served for 27 years), you're stretching it to say Al Gore served valiantly. His four months in Vietnam as a journalist were devoid of valor.

Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam, and Cambodia (he has the hat), and in Paris (negotiating with the North Vietnamese while still a Naval Reserve Officer), but three minor flesh wounds, with two of them apparently self-inflicted, resulting in Purple Hearts, gave him a quick ticket home.

Finally, I must not be a RadCon, cause I don't drool over Bush, Cheney, Frist, Wolfie, and Perle. In fact, I don't drool over any men.

"One thing that always puzzles me is how the Radical Right always calls us liberals wimpy, when our party is full of the Murthas, Gores, Kerrys, and Clelands...all men who served valiantly."

Cleland..certainly valiant

Kerry...a proven liar and with one of the shortest combat careers of anyone involved in Vietnam...excpet for GORE...who never saw one minute of combat, served for 141 days, and then got to go home early when he enrolled in divinity school...from which he promptly dropped out.

Oh...and Murtha??? seems his purple hearts are bogus also...and he refuses to release his military records. From all accounts he suffere two separate scratches under questionable circumstances.

Valiant my arse...

A-10,

Iraq was not the threat they were made out to be and the war was not necessary... and, invading Iraq is hurting out ability to fight and win the war on terror. The only people defending Iraq and our strategy there are people who are trying to save their political skin. The rest of us are trying to figure out the best way to shovel away the heap of shit that Bush has left us with.

And Mark,

Are you willing to admit your full of shit in saying that I need Catholic faith in regards to Iraq?

I apologize for the foul language...

TS,

Yea, right.

"invading Iraq is hurting out ability to fight and win the war on terror."

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

"Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."

What exaclty does this mean, A-10? there is certainly al-qaeda in Iraq, but it's a new faction of al-qaeda called, appropriately enough, Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

If you read the NIE report from last month, you'd know that al-qaeda has fragmented into a much looser network, one that is harder to track, harder to find, harder to combat. And invading Iraq did not cause this change, invading Afghanastan did. What Iraq did was give this new version of al-Qaeda a rallying call, recruitment fodder (again, see the NIE) that has given more people the will to attack the US.

The leadership, the people behind 9/11, that are still out there plotting to attack the US, are not in Iraq. But the invasion has given their cause more support in the middle east and around the globe. It's allowed OBL to stay "under the radar," no longer the main focus of our war on terror. (Remember Bush's "to be honest, I don't think about him that often" comment?).

We are batteling al-qaeda in Iraq, but how much is that really helping protect the US homeland? I think doing more harm than good. I don't think we're getting information that will stop attacks in the US or against US interests from Iraq, and I don't think we're stopping actual operations looking to attack the US homeland, in Iraq.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, tactically, fighting AQ in Iraq isn't really having much an effect in the overall fight against terrorism, except that it working to swell the ranks of others around the world to fight us. AQ in Iraq didn't exsist before the invasion. We're fighting a new problem that we created, while the old one is both emboldened by it and getting less attention because of it.

TS,

Do you have a problem in retaining information? You must, because you keep coming back to the premise that al Qeada is the only terrorist organization in the world. I have explained on other threads that it isn't, there are scores and we are at war with all of them. Try to remember that.

"The leadership, the people behind 9/11, that are still out there plotting to attack the US, are not in Iraq."

Actually, the leader, the person behind the 9/11 atacks is currently at Club GITMO. And I don't mean OBL, he just a figurehead. We are actively hunting him down, as well as other leaders of al Qeada and other terrorist organizations.

TS,

Why don't you answer the question posed in this thread: Why is the Left Insane? It goes right along with "Why do you have BDS", since BDS is a manifestation of the insanity exhibited by the left.

Actually, I think you're the one who's having trouble retaining information, A-10... I thought we were past this silly name-calling thing, but I guess we're not. Again, when you tell me why you are so retarded, i'll tell you why I have BDS.

There is only 1 reason liberals can be considered insane: they haven't dragged stupid bastards like you out behind the wood shed and beaten you to within an inch of your lives.

TS,
Gee, can't you take a joke?

Bane: "No Child Left Behind doesn’t have an English immersion standard."

Maybe it's not called that, but it does have standardized tests. These tests are given in English. I'd call that an English immersion standard, wouldn't you? And ESL teachers aren't complaining because they'll be out of a job, they're complaining because NCLB gives kids who just got here no time to learn English before they start receiving failing grades. Yes, people should all learn English in America, but you it's not necessary to be so ruthless.

“'The CEO who increased his company's stock price by cooking the books'? You must be talking about the successful liberal businessman of the world that just gave me the perplexed look."

Ah, wit. Actually I was thinking of Lay and Ebbers of Enron and Worldcom, not exactly liberal poster children.

"Hey, that cop may have obtained the evidence illegally (unlawfully) but at least he feels good about it."

I get it! Liberal teachers do nothing but encourage students to do whatever feels good, therefore...hahaha...your little joke has successfully obscured the fact that I crushed your point that only results matter in the real world. You have bamboozled me with that skillful jab, my friend.

You have bamboozled me

Nope, you were bamboozled from the start, get with reality, man.

Get a grip!

Thanks A-10, both for your service to this country and for your continued service to bring light to the truth here.

DM,

Thanks. The Truth Shall Set Us Free.