Mark, like you and many, many others, I pray for President Bush every day. I cannot think of a president other than FDR and Lincoln, who have had to deal with so much on their plate. The only thing President Bush has not had to deal with is an invasion from outer space, a nuclear war or the san adreas fault collapsing. President Bush has lead like no leader I have experienced in my lifetime, with courage, dignity and action. I shall forever consider myself a Bush republican. If the democrats had gotten out of the way, President Bush would have reformed social security, medicare, tax reform already and we would be energy independent. President Bush has so many good qualities. He is naturally likeable, funny, a man of courage, honesty, a man who wants to tackle tough problems and to take action. I think President Bush is the greatest president in american history.

President has to fight to win!That is the only way to beat Harry who supports our enemies.This namby-pamby style of warfare is getting nowhere and strengthens our enemies.For God sake Mr.President take off the gloves!

Mr. Bush has impugned the patriotism of his political opponents indirectly through Dick Cheney and a host of other Republicans.

Conservative pundits with White House blessings constantly attack the patriotism of Democrats and people against the war, which is a plurality of Americans at the point.

Bush can pretend to be clean and have nothing to do with the odious political climate that exists. Yet the same can be traced right to and to Karl Rove's desk initialed with the "W" stamp of approval.

As far as being the "target of the most sustained and dishonest campaign of slander," it is well deserved.

Bush is the most incompetent, ignorant and arrogant occupant the White House has ever had. It is not slander, but the truth.

Bush patient? You've got to be kidding. This is a man known for petulant temper tantrums when he is confronted with the truth or an occasional "hard" question from the press.

I can only hope - and pray - that Bush is the worst president this nation has to endure.

Wade

Thne man definitely has a high level of tolerance--heck, I can't even stand the kooks on this blog. He's got to deal with a more powerful group of kooks on Capital Hill.

Or, as John McCain would say, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

I believe that President Bush IS an honorable man,
and certainly has had alot thrown at him from day one by these hateful Dems. They have blocked each
and every person, issue or action he has tried to
accomplish-And, they have done it in the worst possible way of smearing a person of his integrity
by "beating him up like a pinata`(as I have said many times) Butttttt, I really do lose patience at HIS patience, and would like to see him 'stand
up, and get a little angry once in a while, and give it right back to these fools, and set the record straight'. I see when he does get his 'dander up occassionally', it sets them down a little quieter for a while at least...otherwise
they beat the hell out of him each and every day,
and it gives the perception to the general public,
that he takes it, because he is either intimidated
by their smears, or he lacks the passion to "put them in their places". For once, I would like to
see the President, verbally smack down the likes of Pelosi, Reid and a few others. When he 'takes the high road', again, it sometimes appears that he is intimidated and somewhat weak by their toughness. I know he has alot on his plate, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and back off people who are like pesky ants at a picnic. I'd like to see him step on a few of those ants one of these days.

I'll second that post, Darth Malice....Amen.

These fools in the Donk party, are like spoiled little rotten children that throw tantrums, kick and scream, when they don't get their own way.

The President needs to give these brats a "good
ole fashion spank'n" (I think the country would stand up and cheer him, if he did)(When certain guys that spoke for the Whitehouse did it to that
mouthy, ugly Helen Thomas always seated in the front row of the news conferences, she kinda quieted down and stopped spouting her sarcasim so blatently-It Works-Wish Bush Would Do It!

Nice set up for 2008. All the ducks as they say in America are in a row. I like that quaint aphorism of Husayn ibn Ali, "Death with dignity is better than life with humiliation," to describe what your people seek Noonan. What you call for is the only way your political side can win. What you cannot understand is that al Qaeda will attack America in the next 18 months, before the departure of George W Bush from the White House no matter what the Democratic Congress does or what bill Bush vetoes. It is the manner in which they plan their so-called "specataculars". On September 11, 2001 the foundation was being laid for the next attack while America reeled from a true blind side. And please to the brownshirts who come to this site to hate people and spew vitriol and venom at anyone who knows a whit about human history do not read into my words some glee at these events I merely point to the facts that the coordinated attacks of that day did catch the lone superpower on Terra with her pants down around her ankles from an intel and law enforcement angle.

Going back to my point there is only a point of pride that Bush fights for and that will always get the 10% who know nothing of realpolitik waving flags no matter how futile the effort. What drives the Osama bin Laden's of Terra to organize the killing by terror of thousands of people within the borders of the United States has much more to do with policies developed in the post World War 2 era involving US AID the CIA and how America has used foreign debt as a weapon of mass destruction than any cultural or religious differences. These are handy reasons used to get the stupid to scream foaming spittle into the wind when we know such men are too lazy, comfortable or cowardly to take up arms in the name of freedom, justice or even to protect the lives of their own neighbors, whom most could care less about.

You can worship Bush all you want but one thing is clear to these old eyes, if the powers in the Middle East that do wish to cause America chaos and harm were to attack today you would find some way for it suddenly not to be the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war to blame. Somehow it would be the Democrats, or Nancy Pelosi or even journalists like me who dissent about this war or even illegal immigrants.

This Mr. Noonan is because like those who have come before you your people need an enemy lacking any other natural predators in your jungle, having such an easy path in life you must create an artificial struggle that can possibly cause death and loss. Why? Because to not have such things and stalwart men of petulance like George W Bush at the helm your markets would stabilise and that lack of fluctuation with them is far more frightening than the loss of a few thousand citizens which America can spare and yes spare again with no harm done to the overall economy. That is what you are talking about Noonan is it not; the wealth of America, vice her people? What you seek to save isn't the family farm in western Iowa or the group of kids in their classrooms in a small silver town in Nevada or even a PS in Harlem. What you wish to protect and what George W Bush means when he speaks of protecting America is the economic infrastructure that makes America a going and comfortable concern. It is not freedom you fight for or even liberty anymore; what you fight for is what you worship Mr. Noonan and that is the materialism that makes America a nubile woman on a patch of NexTurf floating in an ocean of hungry sharks; nothing more nothing less.

As a method of making my point that reason trumps warfare I would seek for Keefer, a man of few words indeed, to clarify the rationale of engaging Iran militarily without casting any slurs of questioning anyone's loyalty to their nation state. I doubt seriously if this individual is capable of such a leap of intellect but where I live Hope is one of the only buoys upon which we can cling.

I leave it to your unilateralist counsel Good Sers . . .

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

Mark, like you and many, many others, I pray for President Bush every day.

Posted by: james allegro at April 20, 2007 01:47 AM

Yes, James, while you are down on your knees how about a prayer for the men, women, and children who have suffered due the the disastrous policies of GWB, 'the greatest President in American history'. If you truly believe this person is the best the U.S. could produce, as President and leader of the free world, then you do a great disservice to your country. You should hang your head in shame, James.

Or, as John McCain would say, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Posted by: keefer at April 20, 2007 05:06 AM

I guess there is nothing as amusing as death and destruction on foreign soil, eh, keefer.

He also said, "There are good people, patriotic people who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a difference.” He can carefully craft his speeches, but the reality should read, “There IS a majority of the people including Generals, patriotic people who DON'T believe that additional troops WILL make that big a difference.”

He goes on to talk a lot about the terrorists’ plans, but what about his plan? What is his definition of success?

you seriously believe this is a great response?
Its a total joke. Its more the same - taking a incredibly complicated situation and trying to reduce it to the most simplistic way of viewing it which happens to benefit is current agenda.

Basically this translates to:
a) its all Al - Queda's fault
b) more of the same failed strategy

you have to be kidding me if you think this is a great response..

"President Bush is the most patient man we have ever had in the white house"
Are you serious? HA

When you say, "...he's been the target of the most sustained and dishonest campaign of slander in all of political history...," I begin to see how you can make such wildly off the mark posts. Your knowledge of history is woeful unless you think 'all of history' means the amount you were alive for.

The DoJ leadership is in self inflicted death watch. The "stand up/ stand down" policy has lost funding priority. More republicans are being investigated every day. The White House is now claiming RNC documents are protected by the Executive branch. That's just a taste of what's going on and "thems the facts". Not slander.

the Brits coulda described the colonists as "a few thousand ragged terrorists" during the onset of the revolutionary war.

I'm NOT equating the two, just making an observation.

we're up against an ideology in prosecuting the GWOT which must be fought across the spectrum from financial to political & military.

Yeah,
I used to think that they were just crazy, but now it's obvious that they are compltely over the edge -- I love it -- these fools are going down and they don't even get it -- it gets better every day!

and by the way, in this political discourse, we should never question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with the President. That's not the American way.
Wow. The chutzpah it takes to put that into words is literally off the scale. Questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with Bush is _exactly_ what Bush and Cheney have done at _every _single_ opportunity_ since 12 Sep. What perverse dishonesty.

This is the same old doublespeak Bush has been using his whole time in office. First lowered expectations, we can't define winning now as a lack of violence in Iraq. He is preparing to leave and trying to make it sound like his idea. Second, still trying to connect AQ to Iraq. What goal of AQ is served by being in Iraq? The only thing they have to do there is recruit new terrorists. They want to attack the US but not by standing up to the US military. That would be suicide on their part. AQ is an evil terrorist organization but they are not stupid.

Left-wingers who post here are always accused of parroting talking points. But the only "articles" quoted in Mark's posts are press releases from the White House or the Army. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is a conspiracy in the media to not give Bush a fair shake. Or conservatives, or Christians, or white people, or Israel. . . What else do have to add to the list of grievances against the sinister leftwing media? Maybe it's time for the South to secede again.

"There's a good group of people in Washington, fair, decent, honorable people"

GWB is hiding his feelings in this statement.

It should read:
"There's a group of people in Washington that hate my guts, hate America's guts and will say and do anything to have America lose this war. And btw press corp, these people are not honorable, not decent, not fair, no, they are despicable morsels of pig feces that pray on their constituents emotions."

BTW legion, I had some respect for you until the "get you in a ring" thing with Keefer, and when you show your true colors and pose as a seminar caller/blogger, it pisses people off.

I'm now having doubts about your military service also, and whether you actually registered Republican since some of your posts have been over-the-top anti-Bush comments.

In short, I'm calling out your military credentials and your voter registration to verify your authenticity.

I'm now having doubts about your military service also, and whether you actually registered Republican since some of your posts have been over-the-top anti-Bush comments.

Posted by: navydad at April 20, 2007 10:46 AM

Hold on there, navydad, I hope you are not saying that registered Republicans with military service, are unable to recognize BS and incompetence in their government leaders when they see it. If you think all military who vote Republican must think as one unit without individual opinion, then you should join james allegro and hang your head in shame.

CO, it's kind of you to twist what I've said....now buzz off and go chew a hockey puck!

My assertion is that legion is a fake since his tone in past posts started as a Bush deserter, not a hater, and now his true anti-Bush tone has been exposed by his last post.

The problem CO, is that you kooks can't detect an interloper within your kind, but we conservatives can usually pick 'em out of a crowd.....in a stampede for that matter. They're that easy to spot.

navydad,
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism*, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

The misdeeds and misdirections (I'm being generous here) of our current administration are apparent even to many of those who support the president's policies. They are certainly also apparent to those who disagree with the policies.

* I wanted to keep the entire quote in tact so please allow some hyperbole.

carsick

Did you conveniently leave this part out:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." For hyperbole's sake.

Whatever happened to the liberal mantra of "helping those that cannot help themselves" anyway?

Remember who gave GWB the authority?

I have no idea of what your point is in the beginning of your recent post. Please explain.

I was referring to how a Republican (or Democrat or Independent) can shuck off a leader whose actions they no longer support. It usually begins after "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and leads to doing what they feel is their duty to express their disapproval.

Otherwise, we did not elect a king. We elected a president and the leader of the executive branch and we also elected members of the legislative branch to support or oppose his decisions.

"Whatever happened to the liberal mantra of "helping those that cannot help themselves" anyway?"

I do agree the president cannot seem to help himself.

The point carsick, is that Congress had granted the President the authorities to go to war, to reduce taxes, etc., and thus far, the liberal wing of the Dem party has done their best to undermine his/our "good intentions" by enabling our enemies and lying about the so-called "original intent".

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't give me the responsibility without the authority?" Well if you have, you'd understand my point.
That's the jist of my argument. The left voted overwhelmingly to give GWB these powers, and as soon as things didn't go as they wanted them to, they abandoned ship.

It truly shows the fortitude of some people when they stand their ground during tough times, and the lack of fortitude and partriotism by the MMQBs has made a mockery of the Dem. party.

Navydad,
WTF, over?
BTW legion, I had some respect for you until the "get you in a ring" thing with Keefer, and when you show your true colors and pose as a seminar caller/blogger, it pisses people off.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Context, please? I'll deal with your other garbage after I have some idea what the hell you're talking about...

BTW carsick..you did get your quote from the DofI?? Or am I missing something here?

My comment was in response to your attack on legion's veracity and patriotism simply because he, along with the vast majority of Americans, has lost faith in our president. People generally are not happy when they lose faith in the president.

You got me thinking about this: "don't give me the responsibility without the authority?"
You mean like the reason no one has accepted the job of War Czar being offered by the Commander in Chief?
What does the Commander do that the Czar doesn't and vice versa?

I apologize legion! Profusely!

But not for the latter part of my comment.

It was posted by tomjeffairplane
"Keefer:
I wish I had the opportunity to get you into a boxing ring. I would aim directly for your temple and then your jaw. The end result being you could not think and you could not talk.
Expose yourself to a plague, you mean spirited eunuch."

Posted by: tomjeffairplane at April 18, 2007 09:53 PM

Do you lefties even listen to yourselves? I guess you don't...you don't even see how you drip with venom for the President and those who support him.

Really, its rather sad to watch.

navydad,
Yes, my quote was from the Declaration. I did conveniently leave out the majority of the document for two reasons: 1.) brevity - I wanted to focus on the relevant part to my point. 2.) I didn't want to fill the comment thread with the entire document.

BTW, now that I apologized to legion, do I need to go to rehab...LOL??

"You mean like the reason no one has accepted the job of War Czar being offered by the Commander in Chief?"
I don't see a connection here carsick. I believe that even if I were presented with the task of War Czar, that due to the proliferation of attacks by the anti-war crowd, and a majority in Congress that will go to any length to see GWB humiliated for the advancement of their agenda, seems a bit foolhardy to pursue.

BTW, can you imagine how the world has changed since 911 as far as the president's responsibilities go? It's not as simple--although no one ever said it was--as it used to be...that's for damn sure. So, I give GWB credit for just being able to withstand the heat.

Mark Noonan,
You seem to attack democrats in every single post as if they are some monolithic enemy. Yet you stand with near only one third of the electorate who still think he is "on the right track".
Are you immune to the venomous litmus test you seem to so often apply?

navydad
Are you suggesting that the president is too busy to be Commander in Chief? Should we get a Constitutional amendment to remove that particular job description?
Should we create a position for a War Czar in the cabinet and authorize the position with actual authority?
Right now it looks like a scapegoat position to protect the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief.

mark....i'm not left or right.....
probably more of an alien observer on your site
after reading your post about lefties dripping with venom?
i'd have to say it's lefties AND the righties are dripping with earthly poison about whatever subject you're talking about.
wish both sides could get their human heads out of your butts

carsick, why try to spin every word as some sort of conspiracy or the shunning of responsibility?

I'm saying that the GWOT has added a new dimension to the office of the president and that the world is more complicated now than the past....that's all.

Ya know, for the party of so-called compassion, you sure seem to take comfort in attacking our President and anyone who agrees with him.
And furthermore, it is GWB that has put his juevos on the line for this country....can't you see that? Or are you so blinded by your hatred for him that you cannot see any good? Which is bogus and insincere if true.

Do you lefties even listen to yourselves? I guess you don't...you don't even see how you drip with venom for the President and those who support him.

Really, its rather sad to watch.

Posted by Mark Noonan at April 20, 2007 01:28 PM

Mark, do you think if GWB showed even a token of competency, had not made mistake after mistake, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or had not devalued the status of your country on the world stage, the lefties, and now even members of the right, would hold him in such contempt?

navydad,
Disagreeing with somebody usually means you supply counter arguments to explain your disagreement.
You may see that as "attacking" I see it as dialog and debate.
Obviously, frustration seeps in when dialog and debate are intentionally avoided or quashed.
Too often I see the following tactics used here and by the administration:
Shoot the messenger. Call a person's patriotism suspect. Avoid relevant questions.

I was serious about the War Czar questions. How do you propose it works where they have accountability and authority?

CO,

We're not occupying Iraq...its statements like that from you on the left which show that your entire motivation is hatred of President Bush.

How about last October when Bush said
"A vote for the Democrats is a win for the terrorists" ?????

CO,

We're not occupying Iraq...its statements like that from you on the left which show that your entire motivation is hatred of President Bush.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 20, 2007 02:10 PM

If my country were invaded by a foreign military who refused to leave, well, Mark, I would be unable to call it anything other than an occupation.

Mark Noonan,
You seem to think calling someone's motivation "hate" is demeaning for some reason. Then you act as though that allows you to duck their arguments or opinions.
Even the president called our being in Iraq an occupation until he said we were invited to be in Iraq. Kind of odd to be invited to be some place you already are.

The real defeatist with respect to Iraq was President Bush, when he rushed to invade the country unnecessarily, against the advice of one of the most experienced and wise military leaders we have, his own secretary of state. We broke it and we've owned it ever since, to our grief and the Iraqis'.

Bush was the real defeatist when he decided to invade a country about which he was woefully ignorant and unbelievably unwilling to learn. The Bible says "know thine enemy." He sure blew that one.

Bush was the real defeatist when he stubbornly refused for four years to build up the military and send in substantially more troops, back when doing so could've made a real difference.

Bush was the real defeatist when he relied on Gen. Tommy Franks, who failed utterly to secure weapons and munitions depots, secure Iraq's borders and quell the looting and violence in the spring and summer of '03.

Bush was a defeatist when he turned Iraq over to clueless L. Paul Bremmer and a pack of equally clueless neocon twits who didn't begin to know how to restore order, rebuild the infrastructure and get the economy back on its feet.

Bush was a defeatist when, against the advice of people with good insight gained from long experience, urged broad, pragmatic diplomatic efforts to get other Mideast nations to help in isolating Iraq's bad guys and help keep infiltrators and arms support from getting into the country.

Now, when defeatist-in-deeds Bush has made such a thoroughgoing mess of things that it's no longer in our power to suppress the civil war and other violence raging in Iraq, Bush stubbornly insists on a too-little, too-late bid to run out the clock.

Now that Bush has made such a complete mess of things in Iraq and the region that historians a century from now will still be holding his performance up as a model of how not to do things — now, you single out Sen. Harry Reid as a defeatist for speaking truth to power about the reality of our situation.

Face facts. Squandering more of our troops' lives and limbs to spare Bush and his vice president the discomfort of presiding over a defeat and bloody aftermath of their own making does not constitute a failure to support our troops or our country. Quite the opposite is true.

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

McPeak also added: "It's not a question of whether we're going to leave Iraq -- it's a question of when." The whole Rolling Stone panel discussion is worth a read in light of Reid's remarks yesterday and the GOP's assault on them.

It is disingenuous to suggest hate is a one-way street moving from left toward the right. We all know it goes both ways. This blog is ridiculous: a post consisting of a press release from the WH or MNF is challenged by readers whose patriotism and common sense are then questioned. It is insulting. Is 2/3 of the country unpatriotic? Stop and think before calling someone a traitor. It is quite simply un-American.

We aren't occupying Iraq Mark???

WTF are we doing there then? Who invited us? Why do we need 150K troops patrolling Iraq ? What was Paul Bremmer's purpose??

kblack,

We are there at the express invitation of the legitimate, elected Iraqi government.

Carsick,

Pardon me for not going to Rolling Stone magazine for expertise on military affairs...if I want to know what worthless, self-indulgent rock star is making waves, I'll check with Rolling Stone...

SW,

Rushed to invade?

Hmmm...start of war: September 11, 2001

Start of liberation of Iraq: March 19, 2003

18 months between the dates...how do you rush something through in a year and a half?

Yeno,

Provided you don't advocate defeatist or treasonous points of view, we won't call you a defeatist or traitor. Really, its quite simple...by its fruit shall the tree be known.

Mark Noonan,
And here I thought that a retired four-star who had been on the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush during the first Gulf War was just that. You claim he is worthless, self-indulgent rock star.
Do you have his CDs or something? Does he tour?

I would guess that he doesn't call the majority of Americans who disagree with him 'traitors'. In fact he might even have more knowledge pertaining to the Iraq situation than the person who does name call in lieu of making cogent arguments.

Mark, 9/11 marked the start of Bush's War on Terror. A lot of thinking people have tried to point out that, though the War in Iraq has always been tied to 9/11 by the administration, such links are tenuous and only supportable through DoubleThink. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after our troops got there. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda except that they were both Muslim. No one "invited" us to Iraq unless you consider the well-fed exile community that peddled lies to ALL OF US, Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Cheney, Hillary, Kerry -- all of us were lied to by Chalabi and these people. The government when we invaded was Baathist. They did not invite us. Most of the nternational community begged us to wait! Inspectors were there. Why didn't they find anythign fast enough? Either there was nothing to find or it was so well-hidden that we still haven't found it! Our buddy the King of Saudi Arabia called it an ocupation. Did the DNC send him talking points? Saudi Arablia is funding the Sunnis. Iran is funding and arming the Shiites. What good are we doing there getting shot at by both sides? Please explain what "victory in iraq" would mean. A Shiite government, or a Sunni one? It will be one or the other. Let the surge do its work, fund it, full steam ahead, but it is too little too late. There has never been a war in which the home frotn did not complain. There were riots in the Civil War for Pete's sake! Let there behonest and open dissent. Honest dissenters are only called traitors in toalitarian societies. We are far from that. Many people disagree with Bush for good reason. How often were we told victory is just around the corner? Too often to take it lying down anymore. People can disagree without being traitors. Live with it.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible. […]

Or,
"...We face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on illusions, not realities. There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing..."
William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.

Mark Noonan,
Interesting how you are judge and jury for treasonous acts yet you say:
"Hmmm...start of war: September 11, 2001
Start of liberation of Iraq: March 19, 2003"

And, President Bush says:
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Mark Noonan wrote:

Rushed to invade?

Hmmm...start of war: September 11, 2001

Start of liberation of Iraq: March 19, 2003

18 months between the dates...how do you rush something through in a year and a half?

The dates mentioned have nothing to do with one another, except in the minds of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neoconquistadors.

The real operative dates are Oct. 2002-March 2003, when Bush was like a kid with $1 burning a hole in his pocket, so anxious was he to misuse the authorization Congress had provided. He literally couldn't wait to send in the troops, so he refused to let arms inspectors finish their work.

El-Baradei, who led the effort to prove or disprove WMD claims, won a Nobel Peace Prize. Bush grabbed the booby prize: a violently disintegrating Iraq, along with all the death, destruction and expense that has gone with it.

As for Iraqis being liberated, prove it.

In fact, Iraqis are locked in the grip of violent forces that have made their homeland hell on Earth. They're so grateful that a 70 percent majority of them tell pollsters it's OK for Iraqis to kill Americans or drive them from the country.

The fact Iraqis have a democratically elected government means nothing when that government is hidden away in its fortified Green Zone cocoon, unable to do hardly anything to make their lives safe or even bearable. So enthused are Iraqis with their liberated state that a couple million of them have voted with their feet to leave it.

Oh, and that "start of liberation..." thing? Does that come about retroactively? I don't remember that being the prime reason the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Boy carsick, you seem to only read the "preface" and the "punchline".
Might I suggest you read the entire piecemeal transcript, and you'll see that every single person on the panel agrees that leaving too soon would lead to even more violence, and potentially a real civil war. Not a civil war that Dirty Harry's party defines, but one that is real.

navydad
You still haven't read the proposal congress put on the table!?!
My God man!

carsick...which one? Was that #3 with timelines and pork, or #9 with timelines and pork?

I really don't care about ANY proposal unless all parties agree....period!

If you can't see that the Dem. party is using every legislative tool in its power to lose this war, just to be able to say "I told you so", then you're blind and deaf.

If I were GWB, I'd veto anything even close to a Dem proposal...just to be spiteful.

With guys like Dirty Harry and nappy-headed hos like Nazi Pelosi at the wheel, hell, we might as well sign over our AARP cards to AQ right now.

"If I were GWB, I'd veto anything even close to a Dem proposal...just to be spiteful."

And you want to claim the the people who don't agree with the president are motivated by hate.
You are a funny man.

Why thank you carsick! I'll take that as a humorous complement.

BTW, who are "the the people?"

I only seem to stutter while typing I I swear.

President Bush is the most patient man, I think, we've ever had in the White House...he's been the target of the most sustained and dishonest campaign of slander in all of political history...and yet he still finds it in himself to say that his opponents are honorable men and women. God bless him for showing that Christian love and charity...pity that his opponents can't try a bit of it.

Comment: I swear, that statement sounds exactly the thing Steven Colbert would say on his version of Loofa Man's Talking Points Memo, the Word. It's that comical and laughable.

Honorable dissenters or defeatist traitors, the plain fact of the matter is that they feel what Reid gave voice to yesterday: that the campaign in Iraq is irretrievably lost. They believe, that is, that a few thousand ragged terrorists have defeated the United States military.

Mark, the War in Iraq IS lost. And it's not because our armed forces did a poor job, it's becasue Bush drew the post-war plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Dennys. Bottom line: incompetence planning the mission, no clear reasons to invade, incompetence with handeling apost-Saddam Iraq, and NO EXIT STRATEGY.

and if they get their wish, an immediate or soon withdrawal regardless of conditions, then they will have instructed the terrorists on how to defeat us not just in Iraq, but here at home.

What a load of b.s., Mark.

Do keep in mind that there are about 4 million Moslems in the United States...if even one percent of them become radicalised, that is 40,000...more than enough to set off a couple bombs each day. What will Reid and the rest of the critics do when the terrorists, emboldened by Iraq, come here? Surrender parts of the United States to the terrorists because a few thousand ragged terrorists are the world's one invincible force?

You're just acting stupid now, ya know that? Only an idiotic fool who has noting new to say would use that type of crap argment to blame others for your party's mistakes.

Dude, admit that Bush monumentally screwed up in Iraq, and that it's time to leave, then move on to your next GOP blind-idolizing presidential candidate.

Canadian Observer, what men, women and children have suffered under President Bush's policies?? The only people I see suffering are caused by the terrorists actions, you know the ones who cut off heads, blow up children in cars, slit throats, blow up women and children in market places, fly airplanes into buildings. You know, the people who the liberals support. The only people who should hang their heads in shame are the dems, the most irresponsible, unserious, bunch of traitors I have ever seen. What will history say of the dems who are acting even worse then the dem party in 1864, when they tried to reach a peace (surrender) with the south, leaving two separate countries and slavery in place.

Great repetitive talking points Ninja Freak.

If the radicals decided to launch massive attacks within this country, we conservatives would hunt them down and kill every freaking one the same day as their launch....so don't worry your little pea brain son.

You little boys can sit by your Nintendo and listen for the fireworks...moron.

Harry Reid has gone too far and our President needs our help to voice our concern directly to Reids office. Enough is enough!

I've been to several forums and everyone is emailing Reid...Don't be left out!

http://reid.senate.gov/

navydad,
The youngster was directly quoting Mark Noonan's post at the start of this thread and then commenting on its ridiculousness. He left out the quotation marks which added some confusion.

Mark Noonan wrote:
"Do keep in mind that there are about 4 million Moslems [Muslims]in the United States...if even one percent of them become radicalised [radicalized], that is 40,000...more than enough to set off a couple bombs each day..."

The misspellings are also Mark Noonan's and not teenage liberals. I am beginning to question how old Mark Noonan is though.

Ooops...didn't see that! But he's still a moron.

Mark...misspell? Never! That only happens with us un-edewmakated types.

"Dude, admit that Bush monumentally screwed up in Iraq, and that it's time to leave, then move on to your next GOP blind-idolizing presidential candidate."

Dude, this proves my point, and I didn't leave out the quotation marks either.

If Bush screwed up Ninja Youngster, then this means ALL except two (or was it four) in Congress screwed up. So, should ALL in Congress be condemned, or just GWB?

Please don't force me to post all those nasty quotes from Hitlery, Kerry, Edwards, Chucky, et al., and please don't make us re-hash the reasons for this war.

The rationale wouldn't change your mind, or any other lefty's mind here, so why re-hash any of it.....possibly to prove to yourself that the evil GWB purposely and covertly planned to invade Iraq before he took office? Or maybe it was to destract Americans so he could develop his crack cocaine empire in Columbia??

Mark Noonan,
Here's another one:
"Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, 'I think strategically, we are.'" [Washington Post, 5/9/04]

Of course that was 2004 and he retired soon after.

...but where I live Hope is one of the only buoys upon which we can cling.

Cav, where you live, "dope" is the only bouy...

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam,...

carsick, you're quoting someone who helped engineer our DEFEAT in Vietnam, you moron!

The misspellings are also Mark Noonan's and not teenage liberals. I am beginning to question how old Mark Noonan is though.

More evidence that you're an idiot, carsick--"Moslem" is a correctly spelled word, and "radicalised" is the correct spelling, in Europe and Canada, for "radicalized."

Moron...

keefer,
My mistake, I wasn't aware that Mark Noonan was Canadian or European. That information actually explains a lot.

keefer,
Is Mark Noonan's supposed ability to define American patriotism and American traitors a new found talent? Has he become a citizen yet? Does he have a green card? Or are you just covering for someone who chooses not to spell things they way American schools teach? If that is the case, why does he choose to spell things differently? Doesn't he like America? (Do you have a sense of humour or does this line of reasoning give you the vapours? Do you go to hospital?)

You may not think I was giving a credible quote by choosing Kissinger to quote but the president seems to like him:
"Nixon is dead, but Henry Kissinger remains very much a man in public life. In recent years, President George W. Bush has consulted him for advice on the Iraq war, which Kissinger has supported. Since 2001, Kissinger has, according to Bob Woodward's State of Denial, met with the president every other month, and with Vice President Dick Cheney every month, and he has advised President Bush that "victory … is the only meaningful exit strategy" for Iraq."

I was trying to quote people who served or were appointed by republican presidents to avoid the expected discrediting you are now attempting.
Also, in case you want to discredit Woodward, here is a clip of Kissinger discussing how often he speaks to Bush, Cheney, Rice and others in the administration. He says he speaks with the each at
most "once every six weeks."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/01/kissinger-admits-woodward_n_30681.html

Okay, that doesn't look smooth in a comment about spelling. Typo alert: "...spell things THE way..."

One last thought before I sign off.
I've tried to make this point before...name calling in the social, business and political realms does not supplant cogent argument. In fact, in combination, the former generally subverts the latter.