Ahh, Bill Kristol; the man who's spent the past four years being wrong about everything. Which Democrats, Bill? Which Democrats were shocked that Bush was going to continue being Bush? Do they exisst anywhere besides your imagination?

Of course the polls say the majority of Americans don't want defeat. What else would they say? Not wanting defeat does not mean it won't happen. Sadly, the new plan for victory Kristol speaks of seems to consist of the old plan plus 21,500 troops.

Democrats in no way needed Bush to scuttle Iraq. The further Bush continues on this path, the better it is for Democrats in '08. The voters who sent a Democratic majority to D.C. will look at Bush stuborness and refusal to abide by the people's wishes, and Democrats will gain more seats and probably the White House.

And you're right; Whomever engineers defeat for America in Iraq will pay a very heavy price for a generation. Based on the November elections, it's clear who the American people think engineered that defeat. The Republicans wanted to own the War when they thought it was going well; now they have to own the war as it (and their poll numbers) slip into chaos.

Ok, listen closely, this is not a new strategy. It's been done already. This is more of the same. And its the republicans who are divided on this issue, not the democrats.

the important thing was to keep repeating the Big Lie about Iraq until it stuck with enough people to make a difference (emphasis - mine)

To borrow an old line from Tigger in Winnie the Pooh, "it's what Democrats do best."

BTW, totally OT but germane to the GW thread from yesterday, the debate is now officially over. Well, I guess the debate can continue, but the issue is settled, finished, done, kaput, end of discussion. Might as well all just bend over and kiss our a$$es goodby. Science has spoken. And me? Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes. (emphasis - mine)

Oh, I forgot to add: all those people and groups who said we've got 10 years left to do something -- guess they were wrong.

refusal to abide by the people's wishes

If to "abide by the people's wishes" is to cut and run from Iraq, that act will itself be our defeat. You can bet your dupa that the muslim world will see it that way.

Were "the people's wishes" right, when the people wished to own slaves and count them as 3/5 of a person, or deny women the right to vote?

the old plan plus 21,500 troops

Several Democrats, including Joe Biden, at various times have called for more troops. Now that Bush has agreed to their wishes, they oppose him. This is why I believe that the Dems are motivated more by animus toward Bush than any desire to avoid defeat.

Moreover Bush's proposal is NOT simply "the old plan", but has included new steps such as attempting to cut off the flow of weapons from Iran. Our troops are now allowed to kill any Iranians involved in the insurgency, which in my view is long overdue, and should also be extended to ANY non-Iraqis so involved.

Curious how you can defend this statement:
"The fact that Iraq isn't an abject failure made no difference at all..."
Especially when the president himself described his Iraq policy as "slow failure".
President Bush: "Look, I had a choice to make, Jim, and that is, one, do what we're doing, and one could define that maybe a slow failure. Secondly, withdraw out of Baghdad and hope for the best. I would think that would be expedited failure. And thirdly is to help this Iraqi government with additional forces, help them do what they need to do, which is to provide security in Baghdad."

I admire the courage our President in the face of all the nattering nabobs of negativity. While War is never something I want, losing is even worse. I fear to think of the plight of future generations if the Islamic terrorists prevail in any way.

Is that really our job as GOPers, to see the other party as corrupt and defeatist and special privilege?

Geez, I keep telling the people I know to make the best argument the other side could make, and make it in a way that you would be convinced. For political matters aren't about one side having the "truth" and the other side having nothing. If everything you just said is true, the utter and complete destruction of the Democrats is justified, as is persecuting them in every way possible. They don't seem to be that bad to me. There might be something to what they say, even if they're wrong ultimately.

On an abstract level, we can think through what you call "corruption" and "special privilege" and assert this: some people believe that gov't can provide some security against a free market that is capricious and dangerous. Yes, the free market does allow for progress and freedom. But it does so starting from our self-interest. Competition means people crush each other to get to the top. Now given that it takes an incredible amount of gov't power to establish the free market, shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that some restraint, or some kind of measure might be nice to moderate it? And is it wrong for citizens to want jobs that are in gov't, is it wrong to aid people who might have been slighted, etc.?

The Democrats might be wrong, but without a clear attempt to engage the ideas they stand for, I don't know what to say. People do the wrong thing oftentimes because they have an idea about what is right that isn't quite correct.

I mean, remember - you're saying they're absolutely, totally corrupt. Be really careful. This sort of rhetoric makes it impossible to work with differing views. What you're doing is the same thing they do when they call us "fascists."

In response to the "defeatism," I must say this. I think Iraq will work out. But I am watching a number of sites on the Right - i.e. thereligionofpeace.com, etc. - say openly that Islam is inherently violent, and pretty much come one step short of saying that all Muslim-Americans are suspect. Again, remember that this sort of rhetoric that you are indulging in has consequences. It is true that Islam and the War are two separate issues on this count, but remember where I am coming from: the general ideas that drive the Democrats need to be addressed (in this case, their idea of peace and tolerance), not thrown aside in the name of "they lie (that they do), we'll win (I hope we do)," which is all the above post strikes me as.

I don't want to be part of a Right that merely wants power and assumes that it is correct. I want to be part of a Right that is thoughtful, can see why it diverges from the Left, and can see the tendencies both in its thought and feelings that might make them Lefty if circumstances were different. The above post strikes me as childish, because the principal crime of the Democrats involves whipping up hysteria, and to appeal to crudely to that fact alone, like they have no deeper-seated ideas that drive them and regarding which Americans might need to be convinced of their falsity - well.

Bigfoot -

"You can bet your dupa that the muslim world will see it that way."

We aren't at war with the Muslim world, Bigfoot. But, if you are genuinely concerned about the way the Muslim world sees it, know that they view our presence in Iraq as a foreign occupation. You can diasagree the use of that term all you want, but the fact remains that the people of the Middle East view us not as liberators, but as occupiers.

"Were "the people's wishes" right, when the people wished to own slaves and count them as 3/5 of a person, or deny women the right to vote?"

How utterly self-serving to compare those who disagree with Bush's Iraq folly to slave owners. When the popular majority was behind the Republicans, you had no problem loudly touting it. Even getting 51% of the vote was enough for you to crow from the highest yard-arm that you had a overwhelming mandate to do whatever you want. Now that the popular majority are clearly against you, they are compared to slave owners.

Get it through your head: Bush's crusade to assuage his ego with this Iraq surge is not the same thing as crusading for abolition or women's suffrage. And Bush's delusional and malinformed thinking on Iraq do not make him Winston Churchill, and does not make this Iraq mess comparable to WWII. Got it?

Really, you people are like cult members.

"Moreover Bush's proposal is NOT simply "the old plan..."

Oh, how soon we forget. It was just last summer that the US launched an "all out offensive" to pacify the capital, gloriously dubbed "The Battle of Baghdad". The very same clear and hold stategy was employed, the very same cooperation between US and Iraqi troops was touted, and the very same number of extra US troops were brought to bear. Then ambassador Khalilzad repeated the very same statements that this operation to pacify Baghdad was a "make-or-break" mission (sound familiar?). Well, it didn't work, just like numerous previous attempts.

The only thing "new" here is the packaging. But even that is getting worn out. The vaunted White House PR apparatus is rapidly running out of zippy euphemisms to call these identical annual operations. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" foundered and led to "Operation Together Forward", which stumbled and led to "Operation Together Forward II", which collapsed and was replaced by "The New Way Forward", which failed and led to "The Surge".

What's next? The New, New Way Forward II? Nevermind - you Bushbots seem to have an insatiable appetite for endless "make or break" missions, "corners turned", and "last ditch efforts".

"... but has included new steps such as attempting to cut off the flow of weapons from Iran."

Since lame attempts to blame democrats for the mess in Iraq have clearly fallen flat, the Bushies are desperately casting about for another entity to blame: Iran. It certainly appears weapons are indeed being smuggled into Iraq, and the US should obviously take steps to stop this. But even without weapons smuggling, the current mess in Iraq was - to quote Jim Webb - predictable and predicted.

Moreover, the weapons being smuggled into Iraq are largely destined for Shi'ite militias (Iran being the lone Shi'ite majority in the Middle East). News flash: the government we are supporting in Iraq is protected by and closely allied with these same Shi'ite militias. In a very real sense, arms smuggling from Iran is going to prop up the same government we support.

While there have been some IED's traced to Iran, it appears the Shi'ite militias are largely using the weapons smuggled from Iran to combat the Sunni insurgents, in what is now properly called the Iraqi Civil War. Arms smuggled from Iran are certainly not a positive development, but do you really think that if it weren't for that, Shi'ites and Sunnis would just be getting along like peas in a pod and that our Iraq venture would be going hunky dory?

"Several Democrats, including Joe Biden, at various times have called for more troops. Now that Bush has agreed to their wishes, they oppose him."

The time when more troops might have made a difference is long long passed. Immediately after the invasion, Gen Shinseki's advice of an overwhelming force of 300,000 might have prevented the predicted looting and the emergence of a well coordinated insurgency. In the beginning, we had a very narrow window of opportunity to capitalize on the good-will of the Iraqi people. We had a very narrow window of opportunity to "win hearts and minds". But 4 years of daily horrors visited upon the Iraqi people have totally squandered all of that. Baghdadis, who get scarecely more than 4 hours of electricity a day, rightly ask what this invasion and continued US presence have really brought them, other than death and misery. By an overwhelming majority, they want us to leave.

By an overwhelming majority, they want us to leave.

And, apparently, Aaron, given the results of last November's election, so do the majority of American people. Your party now controls both houses of Congress, which includes controlling the purse strings. What's keeping them from cutting the funding and ending it tomorrow? I think many on our side would secretly like to see the Dems do just that. It would be generations before the American people would trust them with power again. That really has to grate on you.

"What's keeping them from cutting the funding and ending it tomorrow?"

And wouldn't you just love that?

Sorry pal - this Iraq albatross is staying squarely hung around your neck. Ultimately, as has been touted numerous times on this blog, it is the President who dictates foreign policy. If Mr "Decider" continues to decide not to follow sound advice, then the consequences lay with him.

Aaron,

Do you realise how pathetic you sound? "It is the will of the people, but the will of the people be damned" is what you're essentially saying about Iraq.

If the Democrats were given their majority on the basis of an end to the campaign in Iraq, then that is precisely what they would be doing...do you really think that House members, who face the voters every two years, would really ignore their fundamental reason for being there?

You know full well that the will of the people in the past election was neither "stay the course" nor "surrender". Essentially, the people demonstrated their anger and frustration with the course of events (that this anger and frustration was mostly due to Democrats and the MSM broadcasting enemy propaganda is another story) - but no desire for defeat, no desire for a cut and run from Iraq.

President Bush, taking note of the changed situation, responded in grand style - and it seems that the American people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...as one commentator put it, President Bush opened up a small window of opportunity to open up a larger window of opportunity. And while you might not see it, the Democratic leadership is in a funk...they really, really needed President Bush to Iraq Surrender Group America into defeat...thus taking all of the blame for the loss on his - and the GOP's - shoulders, providing as a gift to the Democrats what their kook-left base wants, and handing the Democrats a splendid issue for 2008.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen - if you want an end to the campaign in Iraq, you're going to have to campaign on precisely that.

carsick,

The slow failure part of it, though, was in the public perception of what is happening in Iraq. What is reported and what is happening are often two entirely opposite things.

Ashok,

I'm co-author of the book on Democratic corruption - to be released soon from World Ahead Publishing - and I assert quite stoutly that the Congressional Democrats are corrupt through and through...it was the height of hypocrisy for Democrats to run against an alleged GOP "culture of corruption".

And wouldn't you just love that?

I WOULD!!!! Just do it already. Cut the spin and just schedule a vote for cutting the funding and ending the war. As some juvenile Lib said here the other day: "I double dog dare you."

Mark -

"It is the will of the people, but the will of the people be damned" is what you're essentially saying about Iraq."

uh, no Mark, that's not what I'm saying. That's what Bush says, and what you Bushbots say everyday on this blog. To quote your fellow cult-worshipper Bigfoot: "Were the people's wishes right, when the people wished to own slaves and count them as 3/5 of a person, or deny women the right to vote?" Please - don't even pretend that you have even the slimest respect for the will of the people.

Further, you have made the point over and over again on this blog that foreign policy is the jurisdiction of the president. I happen to agree with you: Bush, like all presidents, is constitutionally granted a free hand to craft his own foriegn policy, even over the objection of congress. But saying that Bush is legally free to reject the will of congress when it comes to foreign policy does not mean that I condone that, or that it is a good idea.

The democrats disagree with Bush's direction, are proposing withdrawal, and have made that publicly known. Many prominent Republicans with strong national security credentials also disagree with Mr Bush's not-so-new direction, and they have made their opposition publicly known as well. Many foreign policy and defense experts are also openly opposed to Bush's continued occupation of Iraq, and have made that known. And yet Bush rejects the advice of everyone, including regional experts, members of his own party, and his own father's cabinet.

Everyone be damned - Bush knows better than all. Further, he's going to "educate" the rest of us about Iraq. LOL. He's got a deluded Messiah complex going on, and you Bushbots have a nasty case of authoritarian cult worship. Admit it: you love Bush precisely because he rejects the advice of everyone.

Going it alone, and trusting your gut instincts, is sometimes a virtue. But continuing to reject everyone else when your way has already been tried, and has proven a failure, over and over again, is the sign of delusional thinking. Bush's gut instincts ("I have seen Putin's soul") have an abysmal track record, and thus do not warrant the trust you all blindly put in them.

"You know full well that the will of the people in the past election was neither "stay the course" nor "surrender"."

You know full well that falsely equating withdrawal from Bush's folly with "surrender" amounts to nothing more than a failed smear tactic. Were it that the White House had spent half as much time and energy actually waging the war in Iraq as they have in lamely marketing it, spinning it, and attempting political gain from it.

Do you even listen to yourself anymore? You somehow characterize retreating further and further into a bunker built on delusion and denial as "responding in grand style".

"And while you might not see it, the Democratic leadership is in a funk...they really, really needed President Bush to Iraq Surrender Group America into defeat...thus taking all of the blame for the loss on his - and the GOP's - shoulders"

Sorry, Mark, but precisely the opposite is true. Nothing could politically benefit the Dems more than Bush stubbornly continuing on his same disasterous path in Iraq. Sadly, while Bush's delusion is a political gift to dems, it comes at the expense of more US troops dying needlessly. Why do you think the GOP is furiously trying to distance itself from this Iraq debacle, and publicly jumping ship? They know that if the US is still stuck in the same situation or worse in Iraq in 2008, they're toast.

You're halfway to my view on American politics Mark. Of course the Democrats in Congress are corrupt and you had a rich lode of material to sift through in doing your book. If you are intellectually honest, you will concede that Republicans are equally corrupt as they loot government through earmarks, no bid contract and legislation literally written by the special interests that fund their campaigns. The book I would want you to write is a critical analysis of how ordinary Americans can take their government back.

Your premise on the war also leaves me shaking my head. The problem in Iraq is that Shia and Sunni are acting on their ancient and homicidal hatred of each other. I imagine an additional 300,000 troops could put a temporary lid on that cauldron but there aren't that many Americans who are willing to die so jihadists can have a shot at a secular democracy.

My guess is that the war will continue with more and more Americans jumping ship and the Democrats will sweep again in 2008 behind an anti-Bush presidential candidate. They have no greater friend in the destruction of the Republican party than Bill Kristol.

Mark,
Yes, what is reported on any subject can differ from what is actually happening, especially in the fog of war but you didn't provide any proof or information to back up your statement. Unlike you, Krauthammer admits the whole place is a mess - he blames it on the Iraqi's of course.
And the NIE (no MSM group to be sure) says:
"The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."

Do you suggest the ineffective Iraqi parliament and the NIE's description of chaos is actually abject success? If so, I'd like to hear how.
Dismissing my question with a pithy remark only shows you are unprepared to argue your stance.

Moreover Bush's proposal is NOT simply "the old plan", but has included new steps such as attempting to cut off the flow of weapons from Iran. Our troops are now allowed to kill any Iranians involved in the insurgency, which in my view is long overdue, and should also be extended to ANY non-Iraqis so involved.


Excellent! That should take care of all of the foreign fighters our commanders say make up 5% of the people we are fighting. Now, what to do about the other 95%...

Mark-

You said that if you ever missed something pertinent in the news, we should bring it up so that you can create a topic for it. I believe that the new global warming report merits discussion, as Retired Spook has pointed out. In the interest of not being off-topic, you should create a separate topic for it.

Thrower..this is the second most moronic statement you've made this week!

"If you are intellectually honest, you will concede that Republicans are equally corrupt as they loot government...."

Time after time the libs pile up indictments and conviction at a rate equal to and most often greater than the Republicans, but you continue to believe that no one here will call you on this Tomfoolery...wrong!

Let's take a look at the latest immoral act of your fav SF Boy Mayor Newsom.
I can't wait for the video to surface where he's caught with the woman and a few sheep.

Ah...but no one can believe that the MSM will cover this circus act, or acknowledge it as anything other than "just sex"...puke and gimme a break!

If the SF voters don't kick this Fu*K out, they're worse than I thought. But they'll probably give him a standing O at his next public appearance.

navydad, the mayor you mentioned acted inappropriately and immorally. His personal failing is contemptible.

Sending troops into combat without sufficient armor is contemptible, and a professional failing. I realize this is a nonissue to many, but I still see it as a greater evil.

Ashok, I pity you. You seem to see the world as complex, with few issues being black and white. You seem to believe that people can disagree with you and not be actively serving Satan. It must be lonely.

I thank God for people like Aarontime AND Keith Olbermann. Lift their little pretty skirts and spank that arse red.

Come now, the entire point of dem opposition to this war is being missed, the point that the left wants to use as its hammer: body counts. Tally the corpses, input the number into your handy-dandy lib calculator and voila, you now have a "bad war" (Iraq) as opposed to a "good war" (Afghanistan).

Its all about the bodies folks, dont worry about the strategic problems that retreat will create, just count the bodies and paste them onto the front of your '08 DFL election mailers. You can center the number between the words "We Support the Troops" and "We Love America".

Maybe you should re-read my comment Navydad. I make no effort to defend Democrats. Our entire government is corrupt, handing out OUR money right and left to special interests. You can bang "libs" like the SF mayor all you like but I have no dog in that fight.

The real emerging dialectic in American politics is unfettered free marketism versus American nationalism. Both parties are owned outright by multinational corporate interests, and porous borders and disappearing American jobs are one bi-product that of reality.

Meanwhile you blow a hurricane of hot air defending the worst president in the lifetime of anyone born after 1929. He has blown hundreds of billions on an idiotic war, and that money could have been better used to rebuild American infrastructure and retrain workers whose jobs have disappeared.

Criticize me all you want but don't throw anti-liberal blather into the dialogue. We hold the same opinion of them.

Hearing Bill Kristol as the voice of reason in blogsforbush is music to my ears. Bill Kristol, Pearle and Chaney with the help of PNAC have literally ripped the Republican Party into as many fractions as there are in Iraq. You now get to read even here at blogsfobush neocons dissing mainstream Republicans and watch Republicans call fellow Republicans traitors if they support the Warner-Biden resolution. You have the Christian coalition stating to wonder if all the death they are supporting makes them look a little hypocritical in their pro-life stance. Yes let the good time roll.

It took total unity, a willing Supreme Court and a couple of corrupt state governments to win the last two presidential elections. With Bill Kristol as one of the Republican’s top 10 cheerleaders, the White House and 10 point filibuster proof Senate.

We should NOT stay the course.

We should NOT stay the course with discredited and destructive policies in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Washington DC, and other failed Democratic Utopias.

We should NOT stay the course with awful union controlled education policies like the ones in DC that result in the highest amounts spent per student resulting in the worst education possible.

We should NOT stay the course with policies that result in the murder of unborn children for personal convenience. My standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is not a human.

We should NOT stay the course with the new restrictions put in place by Ted Kennedy to restrict ALL windmill projects in the country so as to stop the Cape Cod project.

We should NOT stay the course with the severe restrictions in political speech in force and on the Democrat agenda.

We should NOT stay the course…

Thrower

Good to see that we agree on some issues!!!

The problem is that although you may feel GW is the worst, many of us believe he will go down in history as one of the forward thinkers of all time. We conservatives applaud any president that has the juevos to ward off negative polls, especially during times of war.

As you may have also noticed, he doesn't back down when faced with low ratings, nor will he bow to the special committees when "opionions" are presented...because they are only opinions..period.

Additionally, you do have a dog in the fight whenever you defend "your" party. You can't pick and choose only when it's convenient in politics and if you did, you'd be called an "Independant".

You know, the folks that can't decide either way..LOL!

We should also stay the course on social security, that way guys like me can continue to lose money on a bi-weekly basis and get nothing in return when I finally retire.

What? What did you liberals say? We NEED to stay the course? Ok, just checking.

We probably agree on more things than you think Navydad, but Bush is not one them. He is not merely swimming upstream against polls in pursuing the Iraq war, he is ignoring the advice of respected thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum. Most are pessimistic about our chances of achieving victory there however you define it. I hope for the best with the "surge" but I suspect it will make no difference.

Thinking back to our civil war, England's textile industry was heavily dependent on southern cotton for raw materials. Those interests suffered while we waged a bloody four year war. Had they intervened to protect their economic interests, do you think it would have had any impact on the deep divisions our country had over slavery? England wisely stayed away and let us battle it out.

I do not pretend to understand why the fools in Iraq are blowing each other up, but the antecedents evidently go back more than 1,000 years. At some point they will tire of killing each other or one side will prevail. I do not understand how injecting 21,000 more Americans into this witch's brew will deter the fanatics. To this point, all we seem to have accomplished in Iraq is removing the force that was constraining these impulses.

navydad -

"The problem is that although you may feel GW is the worst, many of us believe he will go down in history as one of the forward thinkers of all time. We conservatives applaud any president that has the juevos to ward off negative polls, especially during times of war."

"As you may have also noticed, he doesn't back down when faced with low ratings, nor will he bow to the special committees when "opionions" are presented...because they are only opinions..period."

navydad - have you ever heard of a guy named Jim Jones? Or David Koresh?

The key word in your misal, navydad, is "believe". Among you cult worshippers, it matters not how many times Bush is wrong, or how unpopular he is. It matters not how many former Republican supporters turn against his Iraq fiasco, or how many experts and eyewitnesses outline the gross errors of judgement and strategy that got us to this point. No - for you true believers, the more Bush is wrong, the more unpopular he is, and the more he ignores the advice of military commanders and regional experts, the more your adoration of him is worn as a badge of honor. You probably think this is some kind of test to see who can be the most unquestioningly loyal in the face the most damning evidence Bush's misguidance.

The Bush administration is not "conservative" - it instead resembles a cult of personality which glorifies the authority of the leader. Bush alone knows what's Right. He alone, over the entire nation, knows the proper course of action. He, above any expert advice, just knows better - he has some supernatural powers that allow he alone to know what needs to be done.

And yet there is absolutely nothing in this man's past performance that would indicate he has any clue. It is just taken as an article of faith that He is Right.

Can anyone name one piece of legislation that the "democrats" have brought forward in the last 16 years that would help fight terrorism?

Ashok says: "The Democrats might be wrong, but without a clear attempt to engage the ideas they stand for, I don't know what to say."

So many attempts have been made, here and in countless other places, to determine what ARE "the ideas they stand for.." and still, no one really knows what those ideas are. We can speculate, based on their actions and the roundabout ways they approach some issues, but they certainly won't come right out and tell us.

They WERE for invading Iraq---till Bush did that very thing, and then they became against it.

They WERE for unseating Sadaam, till Bush did that very thing, and now they mourn the loss of that "stable government".

They WERE for sending more troops into Iraq, till Bush decided to do that very thing, and now they posture against it.

And so on.

The only thing we really know about the radical Left is that they are AGAINST whatever the conservatives are doing. It's hard to tell what they are FOR.

They are FOR freedom of speech---as long as it doesn't have anything to do with exposing college students to anything but radical Leftist ideas.

They are FOR freedom of choice, as long as that choice is abortion, and not freedom of choice in education funded by application of tax money to anything but union-controlled public schools.

They are FOR a color blind society---as long as we select people, based on color, for special treatment, and as long as they can continue to play the race card every time it seems advantageous to play one race against another.

They are FOR the belief that homosexuality is a normal and totally acceptable lifestyle, but choose to make it a basis for scandal when it involves a conservative.

They are FOR casual sex between (or among) consenting adults, even in the office, even between superiors and subordinates, and feel that this is no one's business, except when it is cybersex between a conservative and another adult.

They are FOR equality, as long as it is understood that "The Rich" deserve contempt, scorn, and punishment---the bar for being "rich" being very movable, always being just above the income level of the Lefty speaking.

They are FOR ehtics in government, as long as they reserve the ability to redefine the word according to the party affiliation of the person involved.

And so on...

So far the only ideas I have seen openly espoused by the Left are the confiscation of private property to be redistrubited by the State, and the ability to kill unborn children at will for any (or no) reasson. Otherwise, it seems to be a highly fluid philosophy, dependent on being oppositional to whatever the conservatives are doing at any given time.

You would think, with such a dangerous cult-personage as Bush running the country, that the democrats would be doing anything possible to thwart his evil plans.

I guess all they can muster in the face of this presidential monster is...uh...a symbolic resolution. Now THAT is courage. Wow.

Once again Almiranta proves to be so full of hate towards the liberal half of the country that she is unable to stay on topic. Mindless ranting on whatever enters your mind does not equal constructive criticism. The stereotypical world of liberal conspiracies that haunts Almiranta's dreams removes her from the realm thoughtful discussions on specific issues, much as it removed the Republicans from power three years ago and will remove Republicans from the Executive next year.

4th Light Horse, you would do well to remember this saying: when your opponent is busy committing suicide, you don't ask to borrow the noose. Letting Bush continue to be Bush is the smartest thing Democrats can do. He's taking the whole Republican party down with him, and they sure are pissed that Democrats are smart enough to not stop him on the way down. Sorry R's; you hitched your wagon to him when he was at 80%; you go down with him when he's at 30%.

What a great sentence..''Just a bit of honesty and courage dropped the bottom out of the Democrats plan''!! I love the screaming, the posturing, and scatterbrained antics of the liberal democrats. A little bit of anti-Americanism goes a long way in gaining support from the kook left, but they are slowly losing the mid ground. AirTime and others should continue writing their screeds to pile on Bush, but he is slowly putting all these putz's in a corner. They attempt to bully our President, but in the end he succeeds where they cannot. If John Edwards believes he is 'the decider' he should be arrested just for being stOOpid. Hillary is trying to be charming in public but the nails and teeth are showing behind the scenes. She'll be shortly chomping on 'clean' meat. All of this has put the liberal demorats out on a limb...such that they must vehemently oppose success and victory now. So, if our military does get the job done, as they will be open rules of engagement...the dems will implode and thoughtful Americans will support those who wish to protect our country from the jihadists who would cut the liberal throats first.

RA, the thread is about the Democrats lack of honesty and courage. I don't see that Almiranta's post is even the slightest bit off topic. Rather than just call what she said "mindless ranting", why don't you refute it point by point? It should be easy for someone as smart as you.

He's taking the whole Republican party down with him, and they sure are pissed that Democrats are smart enough to not stop him on the way down.

Do you think the Dems would have won back Congress last November (not 3 years ago -- where the hell did that come from?) if they had run on a platform of "we're not going to actually DO ANYTHING for the next 2 years. We're just going let let Bush continue to self-destruct." Yeah, that would have attracted a lot of swing voters. Talk about dishonest.

Mark, it would be worth winning in Iraq and defeating the terrorists worldwide, just to piss off the dems.

Woops. That was supposed to be three months ago (ie, November) not three years.

Democrats won back the Congress on the platform contained in the 100 hours agenda. They also won back the Congress by promising more oversight. Not do anything? There's so much to do that the Dems barely know where to start. The Dems are doing quite a lot, as promised to the voters who chose to give them the majority.

Finally, why don't I refute Almi's post point by point? Because there's nothing to refute. Because it's all opinion. The same old tired rhetoric the right uses when they have nothing else to say. The very fact that she has to use vague, stereotypical generalizations shows she is more concerned with preserving her ideology than staying on topic.

You don't see gays, sex and the radical left's mythical plan to brainwash America's youth using colleges as being off topic? What a shame.

-Aaron, remember your history? (or were you taught in a failed lib government school?)

The founding fathers were smart. They created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and not a MOB RULE DEMOCRACY.

Besides your "will of the people" is based on a poll of perhaps 1,000. Again, libs take concensus of a few thousand to be that of millions.

We were exposed to eight years of "the will of the people" government. Ol' Bill wet his finger, stuck it in the .... air, and based his policy on it. POPULARITY.....going along with "everyone else" (again based on polls of a few thousand)....is that LEADERSHIP?

Part of being a leader is to do what is right, regardless of the negative feedback. But to libs, as we have seen in the first 100 hours, it still is about politics and what is POPULAR (as long as it fits their leftist agenda) rather that what is right for the country as a whole.

Let's wait and see if the libs truly follow "the will of the people".

Somehow, I doubt it.

I don't want to be part of a Right that merely wants power and assumes that it is correct.

Nor do I, ashok, and neither do the rest of the free-thinking here. However, this is the bar the left has set, and we must fight fire with fire. To the left, it's all about power, and how they can run our lives.

Unlike you, Krauthammer admits the whole place is a mess - he blames it on the Iraqi's of course.

Krauthammer is a very good man, and I agree with him mostly. He could've spread some of that blame to surrounding countries as well, and to politicians here in America.

According to General Casey, the whole place is not a mess, but about half of it is. I think I'll take Casey's word over Krauthammer's, although his report is no more encouraging.

Folks, we can sit here and point fingers forever--we've been doing so for going on four years now. The facts are simple: we're there, and there's no way we can just up and leave without creating another "killing fields." So the question is: what next?

Thrower, you're absolutely right about your Sunni vs. Shia assessment. When this battle commenced, in 2003, I knew this type of situation would be the biggest obstacle, but was hopeful that these people would embrace freedom, and work together to achieve such. Didn't happen. We need a solution, one that doesn't endanger us in the future.

Finally, why don't I refute Almi's post point by point? Because there's nothing to refute. Because it's all opinion.

Yeah, I didn't think you were up to it. Sorry I called you smart. We refute your opinion all the time. It ain't that hard.

Keefer, I think the old 80/20 rule applies in Iraq, just as it does in so many areas of life. 20% of the Iraqis are causing 80% of the problems. That may be tough to overcome, but they're not insurmountable odds. Now if we were France, I'd be worried. This is the US of A were talking about. If we can't get this done, then it can't be done; and if it can't be done, then we're in a whole lot bigger world of hurt than even the defeatists here realize.

I think it would be interesting to study who (which corporation) are funding the main stream media that attack the Bush Administration. If we look at corporate political contributions, the vast majority favor Republicans over Democrats.

So my question, to back up this claim that the MSM is indeed drumming up the anti-war feeling, what corporations do you claim support this type of one-sided, biased news reporting, which is overwhelmingly responsible for the Democrats' recent gains? (Given the claim here that these gains were through manipulation and supressing of the truth)

Spook, don't go gettin' the impression that I'm going LLL--there's only one solution, and that's total victory, with a standing Iraqi government and security forces that are capable of ensuring stability in the country. I am a realist; I know we're still a long way away from that. That's why I'm concerned, because the kooks don't have the stomach for the hard work it takes. Did you hear Her Thighness yesterday, at the DNC Winter Kookfest? She's gone as far left as she can, given her past record. This is their mentality, and they're coming. She could very well be occupying 1600 on 1/20/09...

She could very well be occupying 1600 on 1/20/09...

Yeah, scary thought, isn't it?

I wasn't suggesting you were jumping on the looney wagon. Sorry if you took it that way. I was just making an observation.

Bob, I am not "full of hate" any more than the cop who arrests the drunk driver does so because he "hates" him.

First, I do not accept your contention of a "liberal half of the country.." Yes, approximately half of the country voted Democrat in the last few elections. But we have to look past the actual vote count to see what they voted FOR, and it was not an openly Liberal platform. When you examine those who openly run as radical Libs, their successes are limited to a very few places in the country.

Taking a historical persepctive, I overlay the actual political platform of George Bush with that of John F. Kennedy, and I find them nearly the same. What does this mean? It means not only that the party (Dems) has slipped dramatically to the Left, with the GOP following it to arrive at where JFK stood in the 60's, it means that there are millions of what I call "unexamined Democrats" out there who vote Dem out of habit, or out of antipathy (emotion-based) toward the Republican Party, rather than actually embracing the newly Socialist agenda of what is now the Democrat Party.

Remember, approximately 70% of those polled on why they voted for Kerry admitted they did not vote FOR Kerry so much as AGAINST Bush. Clearly this does not show a commitment to Liberal politics nearly as much as it does a successful smear campaign.

And this presents the greatest danger to the Dems. Their party is split. There are the radical Leftists who have hijacked the leadership of the party, and there are the moderates who are left without a party. Appeasing the radical BS segment of the party will mean losing a large number of the moderates who simply cannot stomach the transparently Socialist flavor of the New Dems. But continuing to run as moderates, as conservative Dems, just to get elected, and then having to face the conflict of either voting the way they presented themselves or the way they really feel is going to have the same effect.

I said it long before I knew that Ronald Reagan had said it: "I did not leave the Democratic Party---it left me." I faced the same emotional speed bump of knowing the party no longer represented what I wanted from my government, but having such a negative idea of what it meant to be a Republican that I could not cross over.

But at some point, Americans are going to have to stop making important decisions based on emotion and start examining actual policies, actual platforms, actual results, and actual philosophies. And when that happens, I doubt that your claim of a "liberal half" is going to be anywhere close to reality. Because when we take away the D and the R, the vast majority of Americans are inherently conservative. They believe the Constitutuion should not be changed by judicial fiat rather than the amendment process. They believe in the right to bear arms, in lower taxes, in a strong national defense, in strong borders and a solid legal immigration policy, in smaller government, in the right to won private property, in abortion on demand being unavailable, in personal responsibility, in protection for our children, in punishment for criminals, in retaliation for attacks against us, in respect for our country, in simple values such as courtesy and respect for the offices of the country no matter who occupy them, in freedom of speech and religion.

And we all know you cannot address my post point by point because we all know I can back up every single point I made with multiple examples.

There is a HUGE difference between "hate" and a simple lack of respect. I respect those who vote Democrat for a host of reasons, but I have only contempt for those at the top who callously mislead and manipulate for personal and political power. Not "hate". Just an evaluation of character which places those people on the far side of the spectrum of what I find ethically acceptable.

Josh, ever come up with a definition for "neocon"? I have been asking for weeks, every time I see you use the word, and you just keep ignoring me.

Either you don't have a definition, or you know it is a silly one.

I'm waiting................

RA (who I thought had signed other posts as 'Bob') is welcome to dispute the claims he claims I made. He refers, for example, to the "..radical left's mythical plan to brainwash America's youth using colleges...."

Mythical? You gotta be kidding. And just look at what happens when a conservative tries to give an alternate point of view---he or she is subjected to a barrage of efforts to silence him or her, ranging from boycott efforts to petitioning the administration to stop the appearance to organized heckling to storming the stage and trying to intimidate the speaker. Freedom of speech? When David Horowitz, a former radical lefty, tried to discuss a bill of rights for college students, which would guarantee that they would be exposed to different points of view, hysterical and nearly violent efforts were made to silence him, to keep him off college campuses all over the country, to drown out his messages with shouting and profanity and personal insults.....mythical? Can you say Wade Churchill?

If you want conspiracies, check out the BS Left---"It took total unity, a willing Supreme Court and a couple of corrupt state governments to win the last two presidential elections..." or "..Really, you people are like cult members..." and of course "..Both parties are owned outright by multinational corporate interests..."

Ward Churchill...I'm not a great multi-tasker

Errrantime you are joking aren't you?

Believing in our President, you know the one that was elected...twice by the American voter is a nobel cause in itself.

You kooks may jump ship whenever the wind changes direction, but we believers will stay the course until proven wrong, and thus far, we're kicking some serious ass. The difference is that you see "it", but you won't acknowledge "it" for political purposes.

How sad is it when a soul needs to act as if the sky is falling to stay in lock-step with their political party...so sorry.

The biggest problem with the left is that you watch way to much liberal media, The Daily Show and last but not least...Errant America. Hey did you know they filed BK? Just thought I'd throw that in since you kooks have fallen for the worst stunt in the past fifty years with Al Frankenstein and Ranty Rhoades...what losers!

Thanks for proving my point Almi. Four posts needed to say nothing at all.

Al states "Josh, ever come up with a definition for "neocon"?"

Hey Al off topic, but I've been waiting for two months for just one liberal anti-Bush kook to answer the question of "border separation" in the middle east. I've asked a dozen times why anyone would be foolish enough to think that Al Qaeda conveniently missed Iraq somehow as a "distribution center" and so far, not one response. Most likely the answer wasn't on their talking point flash cards from James Carvel's orfice.

In fact, I've done a bit of research on Al Qaeda's setting up their PDCs and found that they would go wherever the dollars were and from what I gather, Iraq welcomed them with open arms as did Afghanistan and about 30 other countries.

PS. I hope your life has smoothed out a bit lately??

I wasn't suggesting you were jumping on the looney wagon. Sorry if you took it that way. I was just making an observation.

No offense taken, Spook. We are steadfast in our resolve; there's no way I would saddle up next to those who want their own country to lose. That's all that these kooks can hope for, so they can retain and build on their power.

Our guys had better wake up and grow a pair; Shrillary's trying to display hers. You know that's why she never wears a skirt...