I hope the Congress shows some backbone and follows the will of the people, as expressed on National Liberation Day November 2006.

The will of the people is to leave Iraq which follows common sense and is in the best interest of our country at this point in time.

Wade

Oh, and another thing:

Let's not forget that almost 70% of Americans are now the "kook left base" that wants an end to the Iraq "war."

Wade

Can you say Zany Zel Miller? Take him and the Senate with you. Without the 60 votes nothing gets done anyway. Any Supreme Court nominations will be stalled until 2009.

I support Israel, but he just takes it to a whole new level. America must come first. Abrabs killing Arabs is a good thing for Israel and therefore Lieberman. .

You know Wade, your assumption that the "will of the people" is to leave Iraq is spun out of control.

The "people" have stated they want to win this war, but do it as fast as possible, not cut-n-run as you state. Every single Dem I know protests this war, but they don't want to leave it a mess either, so stop with the generalizations...pleeez.

Your comments are exactly why the American voter is beginning to see the light about the Dem party....you're all liars...period! How's that for a generalization...eh?

Couple of things.

1) Although I do not always agree from Lieberman, at all... He is my Hero. Nobody is more hated by the democrats than he, yet they need him. He kicks a$$.

2)National Liberation day nov 2007, hahahaha! That has to be the funniest thing I have heard all day.

3) Will of the people... The libs say "will of the people" only when their people get voted in. What complete BS.

Wade,

You on the left sure didn't give a two-penny damn for the will of the people in November of 2004 - whence comes this newfound respect for the will of the people?

At any rate, the will of the people is mixed on Iraq, with most wanting us to win...we'll have to see how things come out...but at least if Lieberman jumps, it won't be for the contemptible reason that Jeffords jumped in 2001.

The "will of the people" is that Wade has another drink of kool-aid, or jumps in front of a bus...

Ears...you're killin me!!

Mark,
I agree with your assesment, but my concern is with you continued use of the term "kook". As I understand it, that is a racial slur. If not, please educate me.

Mark:

What do you mean in 2004 I did not give a damn about the will of the people?

I thought the majority in 2004 was totally wrong as you undoubtedly do today of the Democratic majority. I was disappointed at the American voters who had a chance to dispose of Bush and his cabal of criminals but they did not.

But disagreeing with the result of an election, and having some minor suspicions that there was problems in Ohio is not rejecting the results.

In 2004, Americans had an opportunity and ample evidence to remove what became a total failure of a president.

No one wanted Bush's plan to sell Social Security and the endless war policy of the neocons. So they had their chance to remove him.

So here we are with Katrina, Abu Ghraib, almost five years of war, dozens of scandals and lack of ethics and serious threats from our own government on our rights.

Meanwhile, Al Qeada is regrouping in Afghanistan and Iraq is now a full blown civil war.

Heckuva job, there Bush......

But as Scott Ritter says in many of his talks, it is the American people who are most to blame and hold th most responsibility.

Wade

Wade,

You know its so annoying to hear leftist's and democrats such as yourself use your "70% of the people this and 3200 US casualties that and how much more money blah, blah, blah." You and I both know that that 70% is a botched number. The people of america voted for a change in direction in relation to Iraq, not a complete withdrawl from Iraq. On the same note you and I both know that the reason the Dem's gained control was due to its consistently negative painting of the war. They portrayed an entire Iraq as a civil-war ravaged land mass, where US soldiers are helpless victims to an unending onslaught of IED's and insurgent ambushings. Now there is truth to this matter,but in normal Democrat fashion it does not accurately portray Iraq as a whole. There Implications of the entire Iraqi population being opposed to our invasion is also inaccurate. In fact, it's quite the opposite, Most Iraqi's want there country to be soveriegn, a free nation, those brave enough cheer at our invasion as a sign of the beginning of the end of their oppression. Those who do not speak our prasises as openly as others doesnt mean that they're agaisnt our cause. Does it not seem too far from realilty that they are possibly too scared to stand in our support due to a possibility that the extremists could see them and then destroy there entire family? I certainly would not blame them if that were the case. And what about the 3200 casualties? You know for 4 years of war, 3200 casualties is a extremely low number, especially when you consider as I stated above the dems painting of the onslaught that they are helpless to. Now, this does NOT mean that I'm disrespecting our men and womwen in uniform, i hold nothing but the upmost respect for them and what they've done and what they're continuing to do. Although I mourn the loss of those 3200 soldiers, I gain resolve in knowing that that it took 4 years to accumulate those casualties. And what about the 500 billion dollars that the war has cost? (I use the number billion, becausr i notice how you dems love to use the trillion word, and you think it will subconsioucsly sound like a greater number)I think you have little faith in the US economy to repay that debt when the end finally comes. I used to be a person that at least respected Democrats if they had a difference in opioin as my own, but this new democratic majority shows nothing but disrespect to our Administration, and our President. They hide behind phrases like "we're not trying to embarass this President." We know that's a load of crap. And to go back to one of my points from earlier about the change in Iraq policy. I consider the surge to be that change. It is not the same as the previous surges as some many libs here like to make it seem. This surge is to secure Bagdad, and allow a base for the New and still fragile government to gain strength and grow to a point where they can take care of there own problems. That in itself is a victory, not just for the US, and not only for Iraq, it is a victory for the entire middle-east. And in some respects, the world, it shows the world that terrorism can be beaten, beaten by Democracy. That's what makes this war worth it. You cant put a body count or a dollar amount on the freedoms that you and I share in this country. Peace cannot come without hardship, espescially when dealing with extremists who do not want to see freedom for all. This is a basic foundation that separates the Democrats from the Republicans, its the recognition that costs must be paid, if blood must be shed, then blood must be shed. You fight to the end to defeat Terrorism. You dont run away from Terror, for that only instills thier resolve.

Holy Joe assured voters time and time again that, while running as an independent, he'd caucus with Democrats. he was aware of the position the party had on the War to Save Civilization From Extinction, yet still made that promise, on several different occassions. Again, it's not a promise he made years ago, where things had changed a great deal. it was a few months ago, when it was pretty clear this vote would happen.

Dishonest flip flopper? Sounds like the ideal running mate for McCain.

Please, Lieberman has been a republican for quite some time now. He just calls himself a democrat or an independent. But he has voted with the bush administration on every major issue. Just check his record.

Will of the People, Wade? Funny, I don't remember you spouting these points when dems were thinking about filibustering judicial nominees, or Bolton's position at the U.N. Care to make a comment on that? I'll check back in a few hours.

God bless you Joe. President Bush won his election in 2004. The "people" voted President Bush to be the commander-in chief. The commander-in-chief had made his decision on Iraq. We are staying until we are victorious over our enemy. Kerry lost. Get over it. And as you have noticed recently, this democratic congress aint gonna be able to do anything about anything. God Bless our troops and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Just doin' my bit, 'dad...

I wonder what that would mean to the "mandate" on the war?

According to the latest from the AP,

"...Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday."

"...the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combatting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces."

"... spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and- file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration."

Looks like the DemoNuts won't give up easily. Sure smells like Murtha. It would be nice to see Lieberman pull the rug from under their slimy feet!

AAR

you continued use of the term "kook". As I understand it, that is a racial slur. If not, please educate me.

I always thought that calling someone a "kook" is like saying that he/she is crazy or insane. Yes, it's an insult, but refers to one's mental state, not physical appearance.

John, perhaps you are thinking of "gook", which is a slur against Asians. However, the two words are no more related than "Jew" and "chew".

But then, in the PC environment that we sometimes deal with, a word that sounds like a slur is bad enough. So maybe Mark should be more niggardly with the word "kook". Oh wait, change "niggardly" to "parsimonious".

All of this Neanderthal chest-thumping might mean something if the majority of those still supporting this war would do something besides mindlessly cheerlead. It's absurd to read so much talk of "sacrifice" and "resolve" when almost all of the war's remaining supporters can't be bothered to do anything more than put yellow stickers on their foreign-made SUVs.

The will of the people is to leave Iraq

Then, how do you explain the reelction of Joe Lieberman as an Independent running against the Dems anti-war candidate?

How do you explain that although people haven't been fuly satisfied with the War on Terror in Iraq, they overwhelmingly still prefer Victory?

Wade, wave your white flag all you want, America disagrees with you.

Still waiting on an asnwer from Wade. I guess I'll check back tomorrow.

LIEberman can do whatever he wants.

The fight is in the House. Since we can't pass legislation to end the war, then key becomes to stop legislation that prolongs the war. Meaning - cut off the money.

The poison pills, Col. Murtha, USMC, and others will put into the next funding bills cannot be filibustered out in the Senate. If the Senate chooses not to ratify it, well, that's a standoff. A standoff means no money at all. Which means no war.

Now, you can hyper-ventilate all you want over it, but unless you can find a majority in the House to vote against the funding amendments you will just have to either: a) eat it, or b) turn it down.

I think this will give a lot of the republicans in the house an excuse to vote against continuing the war.

But, like you say, it's going to get real interesting.

We'll see how much of a spine Lieberman has

I'm sure he's done the math with 21 GOP seats up versus 12 dem in 2008 and 19 GOP versus 15 dem in 2010 He knows if he switches to Republican he will have a very tough time after November 2008

Control of the Senate is not just about the up and down votes on bills. It's about committee chairs and make up and control of the agenda.

Whatever. Every day we are in Iraq now is the fault of the Democrats in Congress who were supposedly voted in with an agenda to actually end the war but refuse to do so. They have the actual constitutional power to do it. But they refuse.

I wonder if that's because they are conning you libs and they actually know how stupid it would be?

Its my understanding that control of the senate will remain with the democrats even if Liberman leaves. What is he waiting for? The republicans want him, the democrats don't.
Bye, bye Joe.

Why should the Democrats feel the need to back down on anything when they have majorities in both houses. Granted those majorities are quite thin especially in the Senate but when you count all the "RINOS" out there who will vote with them the majorities aren't quite so thin afterall.

Lieberman switching parties would be a great symbolic victory for us but honestly of little real benefit that I can see.

We already have his support for the war for what that is worth in a liberal Democrat controlled Congress. Any switch he might make (which seems unlikely based on his own statements of having "no plans" to switch parties) would largely be ignored by the liberal media and most of his votes on other issues besides the war would be decidedly left leaning which would be used against us by the liberal media. (The Republican who votes DemocRAT angle that we've seen played up again and again as evidence of a conservative crack up.)

The "kook libs" that post here with their analysis of Congessional seats, pros, cons, who will gain and who will lose, may not realize that they too, are showing their hand when it applies to their support for our troops. Take a look at some of the posts and anyone will see that the lib focus is not on the WOT, conversely, it is purely focused on "whatever" will forward their political agenda, including aiding and comforting the enemy.

Navy Dad,

I am one of those voters. I Voted for the democratic party because I want our troops out of Iraq NOW!!! and I also voted for the Democratic Party because I want them to Impeach George W. Bush.

I believe the best way to support our troops is to get them out of there before any more die needlessly. The United States should not get involved in Civil Wars.

Yes Joe has been confirmed as an invertebrate

Announced he definitely won't switch to GOP

I can't think of anything more illustrative of the typical Lib than the claim that "kook" is a racial slur. Someone didn't have the radio turned up high enough when getting marching orders from Ranty Rhodes this morning......

It comes down to the spinlessness of the Democrats, who are trying to have it both ways. They want to appease their lunatic fringe by appearing anti-war, but they also know that the country will not tolerate them imposing another defeat upon the country, a la Viet Nam. So they are trying to straddle the fence, posturing as being "pro-troops" while threatening to starve and disarm those very troops, posturing as being "pro-victory" while strutting around creating a template for defeat, and thinking/hoping that some kind of wishy-washy half measures here and there will generate the defeat they need so desperately while not being blatant enough to attract the attention of middle America.

It won't work. You can't whine and whimper about every casualty in Iraq and then create a scenario which would only create more casualties. You can't claim to "support the troops" and then undermine their efforts and strip them of what they need to survive, much less win.

Yes, this kind of doublespeak does work on the mindless and easily led---but I don't see it playing in the heartland, where people can add two and two and get four.

I'm not a Rush fan, but in the car today there were few alternatives, so I tuned in, and had to agree with him when he pointed out that the Libs have backed themselves into a corner----they claim Iraq will be such a nicer place once we leave, and at the same time run around like Chicken Little shrieking about the "inevitable chaos" of the British troop withdrawals.

It's this kind of contradiction that is always going to trip up those who try to manipulate people emotionally, often with lies, rather than simply lay out the facts and let people decide for themselves. But the radical Left can't afford truth, can't risk facts, and must--MUST---keep up the pressure, keep trying to create chaos where none exists, create hysteria where none is justified.

And it becomes clearer and clearer that to the radical Left, which is increasingly being represented by the official Democrat Party and not just its lunatic fringe, success in Iraq is to be avoided at all costs, and denied to the bitter end.

Look at that goofball who was "interviewing" Cheney---he asked if the deaths of 3000 troops did not mean failure in Iraq. He is a point man, setting up the new reality of the radical Left. Their position will be that no matter how much progress we make, no matter how much is accomplished, no matter how many types and categories and degrees of victory we achieve, it will all still be a failure----because military people died.

Whether or not Lieberman switches parties is irrelevent.
There are enough Republican senators supporting Democrat positions to cancel out any change in the status quo.

MS

At least you're honest!!
"The United States should not get involved in Civil Wars."

However, simply put, this "civil war" as you libs call it, is a by-product of the ongoing escalation, not the root cause of the conflict.

As far as your impeachment theory goes, you have the right to feel this way, although, to many of us, it appears to be extremely short sighted and viscious since there have been two past Dem Presidents that have allowed as many or more deaths in the military as we've had in Iraq. But those Dem deaths were never played out by the MSM, hence, you libs thought your beloved leaders were flawless pacifists. I hate to tell you, but before you go swinging the impeacment sword, you really ought to reserach our past leaders first for comparison purposes. If you keep an open mind, you'll be surprised at the underhandedness and deceit caused by Slick Willy and the naivete on the part of Jimmy Carter...you know, the anti-semetic ex-Dem Pres?