The question is just how strongly the republicans are in supporting the troops...in actions not just in words... to find out....

Check Your Representatives'
IAVA Congressional Rating at http://www.iavaaction.org/

Each IAVA Congressional Rating is based on a given legislator's voting history on issues that affect US Troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and military families.

To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.

For example....

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

2nd-term Republican from Ohio.

IAVA Congressional Rating D+

The IAVA Rating is based on this legislator's voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Senate Republican Conference Chair.
2nd-term Republican from Pennsylvania.

IAVA Congressional Rating D-

The IAVA Rating is based on this legislator's voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.

CLICK HERE to find out how the grade was calculated, and for an explanation of the sample legislation below.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Senate Dem. Steering and Coordination Comm. Chair.
1st-term Democrat from New York.

IAVA Congressional Rating A-

The IAVA Rating is based on this legislator's voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

Senate Republican Conference Vice Chair.
3rd-term Republican from Texas.

IAVA Congressional Rating D+

The IAVA Rating is based on this legislator's voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.

what i find interesting is that the GOP finds it perfectly acceptable to pay millions to help bin laden advertise his promotional videos in front of a national audience. i'll adopt the cynical attitude for purposes of my comment and play the game: "whose side are you guys on.."

Look, that's all well and good, but as we all know, this distracts from the main purpose to which we all should ascribe:

Stay. The. Course.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Can anyone say 'flip-flop'?

Right on, OA.

How can these so-called "conservatives" on this site support the party that spreads the terrorists' message? The Repubs are like Al-Jazeera on steroids. Why do "conservatives" still love them?

Wow... you found a "veterans" group where only 3 of the 7 "employees" actually served which oddly ENOUGH ONLY SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS.

Wow... so I wonder what their "criteria" to get D's from people who actually voted to give them proper funds.

So if John Kerry gets a higher score for voting AGAINST body armor then someone who voted for it; I'll assume the primary criteria was "Are they Democrats? That'll give them an automatic B."

Within half a day I could have a website up, make it look like EVERY veteran HATES Republicans which the SIMPLE FACT is Veterans and the Active Military are leaps and bounds supporting Republicans.

Even half of the "candidates" they listed aren't even "winning." So I guess it'll just go to show that on November 8th, the military knows which part of society supports them. And it's not the San Francisco types that support Nancy Pelosi.

Wow Jim...

From your reasonable posts on Sunday to the claptrap retarded comments you just made above in less than three days... Clearly you get giddy when you get around mildly retarded people who think that if you give terrorists hugs (or kisses) they won't want to kill us.

Nancy Pelosi just yesterday said that OBL wouldn't stop terrorism... the only thing that would is if the American Political Wing of Al Qaeda, known as the Democratic National Committee wins... well according to Nancy Pelosi.

Amazingly... if only we knew in 2002 that if Nancy Pelosi having a gavel, getting to pick whatever suite she wants, and walking in parades with men who want it to be legal for them to screw pre-pubescent boys would have ENDED all terrorism as we knew it, I would have put a gavel in her hand, bought her a plane ticket to a prison full of rapists and let her pick out her cell.

Terrorism all over would have ended and our troops would be at home training... because according to the IAVA, the job of a soldier isn't warring, it's training for the activity that CANNOT ever happen, even if we've been attacked.

Actually, looking over these last few years, it's pretty obvious that the title to Matt's post should have been:

"To Bush, Democrats are the Enemy, Not Al-Qaeda"

The sub-title should have have been, "Al-Qaeda - the best thing to ever happen to Republican party, and vice-versa".

Further subtitled with, "Bush and Osama - campaining together again."

OhioGolfer,

The IAVA is an interesting site. Of course, their ratings are based on their personal belief on how Congresscritter should have voted. Its just their opinion, and is not always based on fact.

I also question their methodology. For example, I reviewed the rating for Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Rep Rogers got a "C" rating, while Rep Pelosi got a "B+" rating. Here's what I found.

Rep Rogers voted "N" on one version of Military Commissions Act and got a "Voted Against Us" rating. But he then voted "Y" on the actual Military Commissions Act and still got a "Voted Against Us" rating.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi voted "N" on the Military Commissions Act she got a "Voted With Us" rating. Then when she voted "Y" on the Military Commissions Act she still got a "Voted With Us" rating. How can that be.

Then when Rep Rogers voted "N" on the Defense Appropriation Act of 2007, Rep Rogers got a "Voted Against Us" rating. Perhaps he objected to one of the "riders". When he voted "Y" on the final version of the Defense Appropriation Act of 2007, Rep Rogers wasn't rated.

When Rep Rogers voted "Y" for Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq, he gets a "Voted Against Us" rating. But when he voted "Y" on the Resolution Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq, he gets a "Voted With us" Rating.

Rep Pelosi voted against consideration of H Res 612, but got a "Voted With us" Rating.

How can voting for consideration be bad and voting against consideration be good, when voting for the actual bill is good? It makes no sense.

There are numerous times Rep Rogers votes against one version of a bill and gets a negative rating, but then votes in favor of another version.

There are also numerous times that Rep Rogers is rated as "Voting Against Us" on "Motions to Recommit", yet is rated as "Voting With Us" when the act is actually voted on.

These "Voting Against Us" rating on "Motions to Recommit" and versions of Bills cancel out the "Voting With Us" when the act is actually voted on.

It seems that their evaluation process is too objective, resulting in Democrats getting "Voted With Us" ratings when Republicans get "Voted Against Us" rating for the identical vote.

I'd take the IAVA rating with a grain of salt.

wawilliyo,

Regarding the "The Stakes" ad, it's the Repubs who are showing it, no? Call my response "claptrap", if you will, but the ad does spread the terrorists' message.

Now I know the Repubs were trying to use the terrorists' own words against them. I get that. But that ad was a complete and dismal failure, and it helps the terrorists far more than it does the Republicans. Do you think the terrorists objected to their statements being broadcast like that? Spreading fear is the terrorists' number one job. That's why they are called "Terror"-ists. And the Repubs fell right into their trap, goosestepping all the way.

The correct approach to terrorism is to appear tough, but cool, under the attack, and kill them by the most secret means possible, WITHOUT SPREADING FEAR AMONG THE PEOPLE. That's why John Kerry wanted more special ops units--to get them before the fear can be spread.

But we don't have that approach now...we have a government that helps the terrorists spread fear. There is nothing on GODS GREEN EARTH that helps the terrorists more.

And it's despicable that people who love this country (that's you and me) would support this. You do, I don't. That's the difference between those that still support the Republicans, and the rest of us who don't.

good answer jim. the politics of fear tactics are as dirty and as shameful as they come. i am so sick and tired of politicians telling me i should be SCARED. for crying out loud, i will be the "decider" of that.

My last post gave me an inspiration...plase spread this around:

Every person who loves America and reads posts here--SPREAD THE WORD. The Rebpuclicans, by broadcasting "The Stakes", should be called "Al-JAZEERA LITE".

Please go to every website and post this comment. Explain how the Republicans are now the terrorists' media servants. They are spreading the "terror"-ists fear. They are spreading the terrorists message. THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE TERRORISTS.

Please talk to 5 people today about why the Republicans are doing EXACTLY WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT THEM TO DO.

We need a change. Real leadership doesn't do the enemy's bidding. Real leadership doesn't help terrorists. It's time for real leadership. Vote Democrat.

Sombody please post this on KOS, sombody on huffington...wherever else thinking people gather.

If you do this, we'll change the world in 4 hours, and finally put a nail in the coffin for these Republicans. SPREAD THE WORD!

Wally

It's funny when democrats who prance around holding signs like this complain about the support Republicans give to our military.

A10,

I want to thank you for a response that did not include an invective against me (as many posters here do when a post they disagree appears).. While some of the comments you make do require some investigation as to just how IVAV did their rating. However, in general I think their 'rating' are overall reflective of the voting records of the member of congress.

Jim Oliver,

You just don't get it, do you? That's why the ad is so effective.

The focus is on the fact that even though we have killed or captured thousands of terrorists, they are still out their, wanting to kill us infidels.

The problem with the left is that they don't think there is a terrorist threat, or if there is, it is better fought by law enforcement and our first responders. You think that global warming is a greater threat than terrorists blowing themselves up and anyone else they can. You think that Presidnent Bush is a greater threat than terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers.

The problem with the law enforcement and first responders solution is, while the investigative capabilities of law enforcement can augment our military and intelligence agencies, they are a post-event force. They are there to respond (hence the title "first responders") to the terrorist attack, not take action to kill or capture terrorists where they live and breed.

The ad is a reminder that the threat still exists and viewers have to make a choice between electing politicians who support using our communications capabilities to intercept terrorists overseas communicating with their supports here at home and politiicans who would tie the hands of our intelligence agencies. A choice between electing politicians who believe the media should not disclose information about classififed intelligence programs and those who would use such disclosures for political gain. A choice between using all of our capibilities to kill or capture terrorists overseas and allowing them to strike again, then prosecute the surviving terrorists.

The choice is yours. Security (with Republicans)or hoping the terrorists won't attack, then cleaning up the debris if they do (with Democrats).

CJ

It's funny when republicans who prance around holding signs like this, this, and this complain about the support democrats give to our military.

A-10,

You note in my post that I mentioned Kerry's desire for increased special ops forces.

SURELY you don't think this is a bad idea, do you?

If you think the best approach is to spread fear among the people, and those who disagree with you "just don't get it", well then I guess I just don't get it.

Instilling FEAR among our own people is the LAST thing we should do. It's what the terrorist want, and no amount of arguing back and forth between us changes that. It's the terrorists main job. Now that I look back at the last 5 years it is very surprizing to me that the Republicans have been willing to do the bidding of the terrorists to the alarmind degree that they have. They don't want to be helping terrorists, but they are.

It's the wrong approach; maybe you think that spreading fear is the best way to win the war. I disagree, strongly. Spreading confidence, arrogance, the old Yankee swagger that Reagan used to have would be a much better approach. Even Bush's "bring it on" remark is better than fear.

But fear is all that remains of these republicans, and they need to get tossed out on their cans. Can the Repubs come back? Sure. Will they come back? Sure. But using fear as a weapon isn't going to cut it anymore.

A-10 - i honestly find the ad laughable. i mean, here we have the GOP bandying about a promotional video of bin laden and the first thing that comes to people's minds is the fact that george bush STILL HAS NOT CAUGHT BIN LADEN. no matter, the GOP thinks it can still remind voters that, even though they have not been successful in capturing bin laden because they foolishly let george bush take the eye off the ball by redeploying to iraq, that voting democratic would somehow be worse because they would undoubtedly scvrew things up even MORE than the GOP...that's how low they've gone.

i mean.. it's all rather inane don't you think?

Now that Bush doesn't need to stay the course

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_4539803

winning, victory, etc. can be redefined however the breeze is blowing.

But it is good to see that Bush and Co. have caved into polls and are working with the Iraq government to make timelines for change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Guess Bush just needed to figure all that out in his own time. Just wish that was faster.

Interesting MSM thing with Yahoo news which reinforces that they probably do focus on the negative go sell or get folks to stop by their web site or TV station (then again, we've known for decades that the bad stuff sells better and makes more $$ than the good stuff).

There was a story a few minutes ago with a title that focused on the new Iraq Timeline (which is good and positive) and now, just a couple minutes later, that title reflects 91 soldiers dead in Iraq in October (which is ugly--and now, just checking the Coalition Casualties page the story is wrong and the count is 93).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

See what the focus of the story is when you click on it.

The Islamic enemy is already here!

Egyptian SLAVERY in Southern California: "Egyptians who ENSLAVED girl, 10, get U.S. prison"

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two Egyptian nationals who pleaded guilty to enslaving a 10-year-old Egyptian girl at their Southern California home, making her work long hours serving their family of seven, were sentenced on Monday to prison terms.

Abdel Nasser Youssef Ibrahim, 57, was sentenced to three years in federal prison and his former wife, Amal Ahmed Ewisabd Motelib, 43, was given 22 months behind bars by a federal judge. Prosecutors said the pair will be deported after serving their sentences. U.S. District Judge James Selna also ordered the defendants to pay their victim more than $76,000 in restitution, which represents the money the girl should have been paid during the two years she worked for their family.

“The young victim in this case was subject to inhumane conditions that included both physical and verbal abuse,” U.S. Attorney Debra Yang said in a written statement. “As a result of recent changes in federal law she has been granted a visa that will allow her to stay and hopefully prosper in the United States,” Yang said.

In pleading guilty in June the defendants admitted bringing the girl to the United States from Egypt in 2000 when she was 10 under an arrangement with her parents, confiscating her passport and forcing her to work 16 hours a day as a domestic servant.

Are you wild-eyed radical Lefties actually claiming that OBL and the other terrorists are really campaigning for Republicans? Really?

Because the last OBL tape I heard, or maybe it wsa the one before last, sounded exactly like the Air America broadcasts of the previous weeks. He even sneered at Bush reading "My Pet Goat" immediately after that became a rallying cry for the mouthbreathing Airheads.

It's been blatantly obvious for a couple of years now that the terrorists have been trying to sway American popular opinion toward the Democratic Party. Why do you think that would be?

Do you think they want the Dems to win so they will be facing stronger foes within this country? Do ya think? Or is really because it is as obvious to them as it is to us that Dems will pose a much smaller problem, vis-a-vis worldwide terrorism, than the Republicans will, as they have and would continue to do so.

Don't forget OBL's tape where he bragged about how he was so empowered by the Clinton era's cowardice and failure to pursue our attackers that he felt totally confident in going ahead with the 9/11 attacks. I certainly have not.

And I haven't seen him bragging about how Bush's response to 9/11 has made him confident about mouting another attack on us. Probably because he knows, now, that another attack like that might just make him and his buddies glow in the dark for the next few decades. Whether you think Bush responded appropriately or not, he did respond,and it got the attention of the bad guys. It upped the ante. Now they have something to lose, for a change. Putting the Dems back in will certainly alter that.

No, the terrorists are deeply invested in getting Dems back in power, because it will make their lives so much easier.

Which is why I think the question of the first decade of the century should not be the old WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) but more appropriately HWOV? How Would Osama Vote?

TO ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY CARES,
Please disregard Jims desparate plea's for help! He has and probably will continue to go off the deep end as his party continues to hurdle itself into oblivion. Jim, please be our guest in TRYING to twist the minds of small man American! I have a strong feeling it is for nought. By the way, isn't it the pot calling the kettle black when CNN & the rest of the lame stream media continually provide recruiting help to the terrorists. People like yourselves prove with every breath why it is neccessary for the ADMIN. to remind us of the GWOT! Keep trying girls, maybe you'll make it stick someday!!! Bwahahaaahaaahaaahaahahaaahahaaaaaa!

Murtha suggested to the Clinton Administration that we Cut and Run from Somalia. Look at the consequences of Cutting and Running... What a DISASTER! Democrats have NO IDEA how to fight the GWOT!

Fearing war and Islamist rule, Somalis pour into Kenya

McClatchy Newspapers: IFO, Kenya - Somalis are fleeing their homeland in the greatest numbers in years as Islamic militants seize control of more territory and edge closer to a military showdown with the weak interim government. The new arrivals say Islamist militias are imposing harsh laws within hours of taking over towns, including banning the popular narcotic plant khat, a mainstay of Somali commerce. [..]

As many as 14,000 Somalis have crossed into neighboring Kenya since September, according to United Nations estimates. That brings the total for the year to 34,000, the biggest influx since the early 1990s, when the collapse of Mohammed Siad Barre's dictatorship opened a decade and a half of anarchy that made the Horn of Africa country the world's best-known failed state.

The new arrivals now huddle alongside 130,000 other Somalis in refugee camps that sprawl across the sandy scrubland of eastern Kenya. Thousands more are expected to arrive in the coming weeks, and aid agencies are concerned about high rates of malnutrition and the threat of diseases from over the border, where there's no functioning health-care system. [..]

The rise of the Islamists, who in June took control of Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, has spawned fears that a hard-line regime akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan is taking root in the Horn of Africa, where militants loyal to al-Qaida are thought to operate.

The threat of civil war has grown in recent days as the Islamists' powerful militias advance on the government's base of power in the provincial town of Baidoa, 150 miles northwest of Mogadishu. On Monday, the Islamists took control of a strategic town 30 miles outside Baidoa when the government withdrew its troops. Fears of a broader regional conflict also have mounted. The Islamists declared jihad against neighboring Ethiopia for sending troops to back the government. Regional analysts say Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia are aiding the Islamists.

Traditional Republicans there is time to change America. True Conservativism now resides along side Liberalism witin the Democratic Pary.

You want a war economy built on the blood of our youth vote Republican.
You want moral degenerates in Congressional leadership positions vote Republican.
You want activist judges listening in on your phone calls and in your bedroom vote Repbulican.
You want America distrated with Iraq when we should be going after the 911 terrorist vote Republican.

All you fools who continue to knock President Bush
keep talking---the Terrorists are listening to you
and acting out on your words-they are putting on the pressure, trying to influence the outcome of this election, but you either don't care that they continue killing, or your hatred of this President is greater than ever in your desire to "defeat him", rather than the Terrorists who killed over 3,000 Americans. At least Bush, is the President who took up the fight against Terrorists when the "second WTC attack" occurred.
Do YOU rememeber all the other attacks including the 'first WTC attack' on the inept Clinton's watch? OR, in your hatred of Bush, did you kinda
forget the 8 years, that empowered and enabled the
Terrorists, as Clinton and his cronies gave the Terrorists the "Green Light Go-Ahead" to hit us, as HE, Hillary, Gore, Berger, etc., weren't going to do anything to impede the Radical Killers who wanted to kill Americans/ Where was your outrage
then, you obstructionist, gutless Bastards?

Almiranta,

Nobody claimed here that OBL is campaigning for the Republicans. I claimed the opposite: the Republicans are campaigning (inadvertently) for the terrorists.

And your assertion that it has been "blatantly obvious" that the terrorists want Democrats to win is pathetic. If the terrorists want the Democrats to win, why is it the Republicans that are using the terrorists rhetoric? Why are not the Democrats quoting OBL and al-Zawahiri, hmmm?

It is "blatantly obvious" the terrorists prefer Bush, as demonstrated by the OBL ad in 2004. If not, why are the Republicans desperate to repeat the performance in 2006?

The Iraq war has been an incredible boon to the terrorists, as they can use this to enrage and frighten their own people into submitting to them.

Let me ask you something: If the Iraq war is so bad for terrorists, why don't they leave? None of the major terrorists currently in Iraq came from there. Why? Why don't they go back to Jordan, or Syria, or Iran?

The answer is that the war in Iraq helps the terrorists. If it didn't they wouldn't be there. Period. I know you righties sorely wish that this wasn't so, but if the Iraq war really frightened the terrorists they'd have run behind the skirts of Iran and Syria by now. Hence the "last throws" of the insurgency is alive and kicking and no amount of wishful thinking your part will change that.

Every time a conservative opens their mouth, another independent shakes his head and joins our side. You guys used to stand for something. Presumably you will again, but it isn't going to happen in 2006.

Jim Oliver,

I don't see tha ad as spreading fear at all. As I said before, I see it as a reminder that there are terrorists out there. If it makes you afraid, good. Maybe you'll pay more attention to our national security instead of making everything a political issue.

"Now that I look back at the last 5 years it is very surprizing to me that the Republicans have been willing to do the bidding of the terrorists to the alarmind degree that they have. They don't want to be helping terrorists, but they are."

You couldn't be more wrong. While the Conservatives in the US are fighting terrorism, the liberals are disclosing the existance of secret counter-terrorist programs. The liberals are trying to demoralize the public into turning our backs on the terrorist threat and withdrawing support. Just like they did in Vietnam. And what happened then? Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians died. Fortunately, the North Vietnamese were not interested in killing all infidels and were satisfied in just invading South Vietnam (it was thee Democrats what cut funding to the South, allowing them to be overrun). The terrorists won't stop with Iraq if we withdraw before the Iraqis are ready to defend themselves. They will strike in Bali, as they already have. And London. And Madrid. And New York. And your home town.

You may call it scare tactics. In the military, we call it situational awareness.

It is the liberals and Democrats who are playing into the terrorist hands. They want you to win the elections so you will cut off funding to Iraq and force our troops to leave. Then they take over. We must stay the course and continue on to complete victory.

Posted by: Almiranta at October 24, 2006 06:53 PM
Are you wild-eyed radical Lefties actually claiming that OBL and the other terrorists are really campaigning for Republicans? Really?

This answer is too easy. Yeap! Bin Laden knows incompetence when he sees it. He lives longer knowing the White House boobs of strategic planning for Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea and New Orleans are in charge.

Josh Keaton,

Go read Almiranta's 07:36 PM post on the "Why We Fight" thread.

Then take a good, hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are doing everything you can to help win the fight against global terrorism, or are you doing everything you can to help us lose.

You see, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. At this point in the fight against global terrorism, we don't need dissent, criticism, and anti-American propaganda. Too much is at stake, your life and mine. We need people who will step up to the line and help in the fight.

I know what your response will be before you even begin to type: "why don't you join the military and go fight"?

Already been there, done that, have the Retired ID card. I have spent my entire adult life in service to our great nation - 27 years in the military, with over 20 years on Active Duty. After my retirement from Active Duty with the Army National Guard, I signed on as a contracted DoD employee so I can continue to serve. If the Secretary of the Army wants to call me out of retirement, I'm ready, willing, and able to serve.

If you looked into that mirror and were honest, you should have admitted that you are not doing your fair share to support the fight against global terrorism. Since I assume you are not enough of a man to enlist in the Armed Forces, might I suggest you do one or more of the following:

- Volunteer at a local Veterans Hospital.

- Volunteer at a local State Home for Veterans. (you'll need to look up the locations, as there are over 150 of them)

- Give blood at your local American Red Cross.

- Volunteer or donate to the DoD America Supports You Program.

- Volunteer or donate to your state's National Guard Family Program.

- Volunteer with your state's Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Committee. (My personal favorite)

- Send a care package to the troops.

- Volunteer or donate to the USO.

- Volunteer or donate to a Military, Veteran, or Patriotic Organization.

- Donate to the Freedom Alliance.

A-10 (and Almiranta),

You guys are right that there are a few wacko individuals and groups (CODEPINK is one of them) that think that we should end the War on Terror. But let me ask you...how many leaders in the Democrat party are advocating a withdrawal of Afghanistan? Again, there may be a few, but not many and none have any real power in the party.

Every time a lib like me suggests a withdrawal in Iraq you guys jump on my case and claim that I (and others) want a complete withdrawal on the WOT, and that I am a terrorist supporter because of that. Other than CODEPINK and a few powerless wackos this is simply not the case.

Isn't it possible, that there might be people out there that grade the Afghanistan battlefront an A+ (or at least a B), and Iraq an F? I'm not sure what grade's you'd give these two battlefronts but there is no way they are the same.

Maybe we have you guys all wrong but if you were to grade Afghanistan an A and Iraq a B+ we libs, moderates and independents just look at you like you're nuts. And it really makes us angry that we have spend 2500+ lives and 300 Billion+ dollars on a war that isn't going to be won, even if the republicans win the election in 2006.

We kicked the terrorists asses in Afghanistan, and chased them all the way to Pakistan. But we put our main force in Iraq without finishing the job on the first front. And in Iraq they are coming after us in droves, and we finally get from Bush an admission that "Stay the Course" is a horrible plan (note he would have never changed his mind on this without his desperate fear of losing the election.)

So according to you guys any strategic withdrawal means you are a treasonous traitor and should be shot. There are lots of people (many in your own party) that are beginning to think this way. Does that make them terrorists too? What about "Fighting Dems"? Are they terrorists? What about veterans who think we should withdrawal? Terrorists too, i rekon.

So the republicans show this ad, which equates Iraq with al-Qaeda. The ad doesn't scare me either, since I remember 9/11 and what the terrorists did to us. But QUOTING OBL? That is EXACTLY what Al-jazeera does. You don't have any problem at all doing exactly the same thing? Al-jazeera-lite is a perfect description of what your party has become.

And the Terrorists know they got a huge break in Afghanistan, and now are starting carefully and slowly to regroup over there while we are busy elsewhere, laughing all the way to the poppy bank about George Bush and his Collossal Mistake. If even a portion of the troops, who are now in Iraq are shipped over to Afghanistan we can finish that job and at least get one pocket of terrorists cleaned out before we start on the next.

I know you conservatives don't like that plan. You'd have us fight two fronts in the war, and even step in and stop a civil war if it were to happen.

But refereeing a civil war is an awfuly long way from people flying airplanes into buildings, and if anybody here is forgotten 9/11 it's not the libs.

Sorry about the long post.

So Ohio Golfer, I went to this website. I found it interesting that the Massachusetts Orca (aka Ted Kennedy) received a B+ and he has yet to set foot in Iraq while other Senators have been there as many as 4 times. I find the logic of this "study" somewhat flawed if supporting the troops can't even get these guys over there to find out what is truly happening and meeting with their citizens from this state.

What say you?

This same IAVA site rated John McCain, a former prisoner of war with a D rating.

I think we all know now where this IAVA site belongs...in the trash.

Ha! CAIR has ties to Hamas terrorists and CAIR's poll shows that more Muslims support DEMOCRATS over Republicans.

Poll shows Muslims in U.S. lean to Democrats

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More American Muslims are now supporting the Democratic Party but their votes should not be taken for granted, an Islamic civil rights group said on Tuesday. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, released a poll of 1,000 registered Muslim voters in the United States it said showed the community has changed a great deal since supporting Republicans in 2000.

The poll found 42 percent of respondents were Democrats and 17 percent Republican, while some 28 percent had no party affiliation, said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.
*****

Defend America! VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Creeping Shari'a Law in Europe... Muslims make threats and demands....

First the threat-(so much for free speech!)

"Authorities offer protection for Italian MP after Veil Comments" ABC News Online: Authorities in Italy have been forced to give a member of parliament police protection after she made negative comments about the Islamic veil. Known for her forthright views, right wing MP Daniela Santache told a television program the veil is not required by the Koran. She said for protection from terrorism, Italian law forbids people from going around with masks on.

An imam on the same television program denounced her as an infidel and she has now been offered protection by Milan's chief of police.

Last week Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said he was opposed to women covering their faces.

*****Now, the demand...

"Muslims want national holiday" Aftenposten (Norway): Muslim politicians in Norway are lobbying for establishment of a new national holiday to celebrate the end of a month of fasting. They think the holiday should be recognized along the same lines as Christmas.

"The best would be to get Eid-al-Fitr (most commonly called "id" in Norway) on the calendar as a public free day for everyone," Yousef Gilani, a city politician in Drammen, told newspaper VG. Eid-al-Fitr, which marks the end of the Fast of Ramadan, was celebrated on October 24 this year. [..] In some organizations, they already do. The state ombudsman for issues dealing with equality and discrimination gives Muslim employees the day off if they request it.

Jim Oliver,

"how many leaders in the Democrat party are advocating a withdrawal of Afghanistan?"

You mean we haven't already withdrawn? If you listen to the leader in the Democrat Party, "we took the eye off the ball" and aren't actively persuing OBL. "We shifted our attention to Iraq, so the Taliban is taking over again". "Afghanistan is falling into chaos". You'd think from all that talk that we didn't have nearly 20,000 troops, including a significant number of "special operations types", trying to find OBL.

"And it really makes us angry that we have spend 2500+ lives and 300 Billion+ dollars on a war that isn't going to be won"

That's the problem in a nutshell. You don't think that we can win in Iraq. Why is that? We already defeated Saddam's best in about three weeks. We won the war in the fastest, most effective military campaign in history, with the littlest loss of US and civilian life. It was a smashing success.

What we are struggling with is the stabilization process. Not only can we win this phase, we will win this phase. We must win this phase. Because if we don't, there will be severe consequences.

(1) The terrorists will regain a base of operations in the Middle East. We have severely hampered their abilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(2) The terrorists will see that America can be beaten if they snipe at the corners, fight the propaganda war, and turn the American people against the war on terrorism.

(3) Our failure in Iraq would send a message to all terrorists that the United States can be beaten. We would see terrorist attacks spread throughout the world, even here in the US.

The the choice is between defeatist liberals, who don't have the stomach, willpower, and desire to defeat terrorism and conservatives who are willing to take the fight to the terrorists so we don't have to fight them in the streets of New York, Detroit, and hometown America. And yes, the "War" in Iraq is currently the central front in the Global War on Terrorism. In the future, the central front will change. We conservatives want to make sure the central front is not in the USA.

A-10,

I think you've gotten to the root of the problem. I do not believe we can win in Iraq.

We have been in Iraq for 3 and half years now. You are correct that the vast majority of this time has been in the "nation building" phase. I assume you beleive that it will only take a couple more years of this before we can leave, with a stable democracy in our place. If true, you win the argument and I am completely wrong. But I see instability and war for a very long time, with no net gain on terrorism in either the short or long term.

Bush won't be thrown out of office and the Dems, even if they control congress, they can't "cut and run" anyway without Bush's approval. The only thing they can do is hold hearings about our progress, or lack thereof, and do everything in their power to try to improve our performance on the war. We will get a chance in the next two years to see which of us is right.

Regarding your three consequences:

1 (Terrorists will have a base if we leave Iraq). Don't they already, in Iran, Saudi and Syria? And won't they be able to base in Iraq anyway, under the radar? And won't the Shi'ite "democracy" in Iraq allow terror groups to persist, as long as they are shooting at us and not other Iraqi's?

2 (Terrorists see how to beat us) This is a good argument, but it depends on what we do after Iraq. If we then go and finish off Afghanistan and create a stable democracy there, Then move forward on the rest of the terror war, the Iraqi taunts will be short-lived. And as I've said about a billion times now, The moderates/independents/"smart libs" have not forgotton about the war on terror. We will win it. We must win it. We've invaded 2 of about 12 countries so far that need to be cleaned out. We have a long way to go, and a strategic withdrawal from one at this point is not the end of the war. If I beleived that the Dems really want to stop the WOT, I'd jump ship and vote Republican (and just let my socialist side stew...)

3 (terrorism expands if we leave Iraq) I don't think so. Terrorists see we are weak because we made a mistake by invading Iraq in the first place. Surely invading Iraq is a more effective recruiting tool than leaving it, no? Surely our enemies don't fear and respect us if we "stay the course" on a bad plan. In fact, if they know we will fight a losing battle to the last man, it encourages them to keep fighting, allowing them to commit all their resources to defeating our plan knowing exactly where we are going to be and exactly what we are going to do.

The terrorists think they are winning, even with the Bush "stay the course" plan in place. They DO NOT respect and fear us because we invaded Iraq. On the contrary, they are emboldened by our efforts, otherwise they would have left Iraq long ago, just like they did in Afghanistan.

Jim Oliver,

"I do not believe we can win in Iraq."

That's where you are wrong, and you go downhill after that.

"But I see instability and war for a very long time, with no net gain on terrorism in either the short or long term."

You see thousands of terrorists killed or captured as "no net gain"? You see training camps destroyed as "no net gain"? You see financial support disrupted worldwide as "no net gain"? You see other countries turning away from terrorism as "no net gain"? You must be blind. Blinded by your hatred for President Bush and conservatives.

"The only thing they can do is hold hearings about our progress, or lack thereof, and do everything in their power to try to improve our performance on the war."

First of all, today's Democrats caring about our performance is a joke. They hate the military and all it stands for.

I guess you can say that our performance is lacking because the terrorists/insurgents in Iraq have not yet been eliminated. That's because we are attempting a delicate balancing act. We are trying to root out the terrorists/insurgents while minimizing colleratal damage. If we wanted to, we could level Iraq, without using nukes, and no one could stop us.

At the same time, we are helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrestructure that Saddam let fall into disrepair. Concurrently, we are training the Iraqi Security Forces to provide for their own security. Perhaps we should have gone in, leveled the place and started over. That certainly would have silenced the liberal Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are ctiricizing our progress and performance, and offering no constructive plans or ideas.

"Don't they already, in Iran, Saudi and Syria?" (are bases for terrorism)

Yes, to an extent. But they won't have a base in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are through. Then we work on the rest. The terrorist threat is so big and widespread that it cannot be defeated in one campaign. It will not be defeated in one decade. It will be defeated though, with or without your support.

"If we then go and finish off Afghanistan and create a stable democracy there"

HELLO. We're still there helping create a stable democracy. Where have you been, holed up in a cave somewhere?

"Terrorists see we are weak because we made a mistake by invading Iraq in the first place."

Dead wrong. They see weakness in lacking the resolve to finish the job. They see weakness in withdrawing. They would see the US as a paper tiger.

"Surely our enemies don't fear and respect us if we "stay the course" on a bad plan."

You obviously know nothing about the military and military history. Enemies far and respect us when we commit to a mission and accomplish the job. Cutting and running just emboldens them. Cases in point: Beruit and Mogadishu.

Do you have a better plan? John Kerry does, but he is waiting until elected President to tell anyone.

"In fact, if they know we will fight a losing battle to the last man, it encourages them to keep fighting"

That's under the horribly mistaken assumption that we are fighting a losing battle. Weren't not. But as defeatist Socialist, what would one expect.

"On the contrary, they are emboldened by our efforts, otherwise they would have left Iraq long ago, just like they did in Afghanistan."

Wait a minute. Hold the presses. You mean the terrorists left Afghanistan long ago? I though that is were OBL is operating from. I though I heard leading Democrats just last week decry about the terrorist uprisings in Afghanistan. You mean they were lying? You mean all the news reports of the hundreds of terrorists killed recently in Afghanistan were false? I'm so confused. Democrats tell us one thing, official reports from Afghanistan tell us another.

In closing, I'd like to comment on a phrase you included in your post: "and just let my socialist side stew". Therein lies the crux of your problem. You are a socialist living in a capitalist world. Haven't you learned by now that America will never accept socialism? To ease your frustrations, why don't you just move to a Socialist utopia, like Cuba, or China, or Venezuela? You'd fit right in.

It appears to me that the IAVA is a peace-nik group that defines supporting our troops as a cut and run position.

A-10

We go round and round on this and get nowhere. Afghanistan IS a victory. We chased the terrorists out of power. But it is not complete, and we are very slowly allowing the terrorists to regroup. We need larger forces there, I assume that wouldn't have a problem with us doing this.

We are GOING to leave Iraq someday, either as a "retreat" (right-wing name for a quick withdrawal), a "redeployment" (left-wing name for same), or after invoking a "stability plan" (George Bush's plan for the week), or "boondoggle" (left wing name for same). Days after we leave, Iraq falls into chaos OR a dictatorship, even if we stay for a THOUSAND YEARS. Sorry. You're only valid option is to treat Iraq as a US Colony, which is basically what you are saying. If so, fine. Just say it and I'll stop bothering you.

And lastly, we ARE a socialist country. Capitalist countries don't let their conservatives create huge government programs giving out free drugs to enourmous numbers of people. Sorry, if "free drugs" is the right wing position, we are NOT capitalists.

How Would Osama Vote?

For the umpteenth time, Li'l Almy, Osama favors having Bush in office--Bush plays right into his hands. Your continued ignorance on this matter coupled with your continued efforts to spout this talking point do not speak very highly of your understanding of the situation. Which, I suppose, makes you a good Bushie.

Jim Oliver,

I'm combining responses for one of your posts from yesterday and one from today, so if it sound disjoined, you know why.

"If the terrorists want the Democrats to win, why is it the Republicans that are using the terrorists rhetoric? Why are not the Democrats quoting OBL and al-Zawahiri, hmmm?"

The problems is that the terrorists are using the Democrat's message in their videos, radio broadcasts, and "press releases." They are not using the GOPs message.

"It is "blatantly obvious" the terrorists prefer Bush, as demonstrated by the OBL ad in 2004. "

Really? With Bush, they get war, waged until terrorists are defeated. With the Democrats, they get Iraq, the Middle East, Europe, etc.

"If the Iraq war is so bad for terrorists, why don't they leave?"

As the terrorists themselves have stated, Iraq is central to their continued existance. If they lose in Iraq, they are almost completely exterminated. If they win, they live to attack us again.

"Days after we leave, Iraq falls into chaos OR a dictatorship, even if we stay for a THOUSAND YEARS. Sorry. You're only valid option is to treat Iraq as a US Colony, which is basically what you are saying."

Basically, I'm not. Never did. Never will. Iraq will be a self-sustaining democracy that will be our ally in the war on terror.

Two comments: (1) You say that as soon as we leave Iraq, it falls into chaos. But that isn't the latest DNC talking point. They're saying that if we leave, all the terrorists will leave, and life will be rosy. They are saying that the terrorists are there because we are there.

(2) I see your optimism knows no bounds. You have already written off the Iraqis before they even have a chance to stand on their own. With an attitude like that, its not even worth discussing issues with you.

You have to stop drinking the kool-aid. Your comments are contradictory, illogical, and have a tendency towards making assumptions you attribute to us that we are not making.

Goodbye. Good riddance.

To Democrats, Bush Is The Enemy, Not Al Qaeda

Well sometimes it is hard to tell the seperation when the RNC with Bush's blessing, since Bush is the leader of you G roup O f P erverts, puts out ads glorifying the strength of Bin Laden.

Jim Oliver, I am a middle-of-the-roader, an independent voter -- I just wanted to tell you that your 12:27 AM post was outstanding.

SeesNothing....

If the terrorists really wanted to have Republicans remain in office, they would make us look good by stopping the wanton killing in Iraq.

Who benefits from the killing? You people simply cannot/will not look at this rationally.

The terrorists are not killing enough Americans to really make a dent in our military, so they can't just be motivated by killing Americans. Besides, they have pretty much shifted their focus to killing civilians and Iraqis who are trying to develop a strong Iraqi military and police presence.

So what is the end effect of the violence in Iraq? It makes Bush and Republicans look bad, which helps Dems in their desire for power. So why do you think the terrorists insist on doing the very things that they have had proven to them work against Republicans and for Democrats?

If the violence were to cease, the Bushies could claim victory, and win easily in this election and the next one. It is pretty much accepted that with a strong economy and huge tax revenues, the main issue in this election is Iraq. Clearly, if he terrorists wanted Republicans in office, they could make it happen.

But thank you for diagreeing with me---nothing could be more proof that I am right.

And Oliver is just a nut. His posts don't even make sense. If we ever need a BDS poster child, I would have to nominate Jim. I doubt that he ever has ANY "thought" which is not motivated by simple-minded loathing of all that is right.

Personally, I love posters like SeesNothing and Jim Boy. I cut and paste their loony rantings to send to friends, when we are discussing the absolute intellectual vacuum on the Left. As long as they keep making my points for me, I think that's great.

Oh, I also think Josh might be channeling one of the axis of ignorance. I haven't read such an illiterate effort to regurugitate toxic Airhead talking points since one of our axis left.