I think its time to vote for a third political party (Not the libertarians).

I do not appreciated being stabbed in the back.

Magnum Serpentine.

I do not appreciated being stabbed in the back. - Magnum

But you've been doing that to our troops for years now. I guess what goes around comes around.

You could move to Canada. I'll even pay.

Cheers.

Posters on KOS are having a "cow". It may not be a time for gloating, but it sure is for revenge!!

Take for instance, this poster:

Politics is all about image and for whatever reason the DLC likes the way they look in yellow.

My suggestion: Let's pin this on one and only one DLC, a Soprano style never forgot the time you betrayed me Fredo: and take him down like we took down Lieberman in the primary.

My vote: Rahm Emmanuel

Let's agree on this together and then make good, this will keep the rest of the sheep scared and in line.

Uh oh, Rahm. Neorads are out for your hide.

We must use their initial claims against them when re-election time comes. Remember "Watch my lips. No new taxes."????

Gloat now? No. Victory in Iraq and at the polls? Yes.

Why is it so difficult for American politicians to honestly serve the citizens who voted for them? The number of games that are played to the detriment of the country is astonishing. There seems to be a complete lack of intestinal fortitude in the great halls of government when it comes to carrying out the wishes of the voters.

To those of us on the outside looking in, it appears that in the U.S. democratic system, the citizens of that democracy are considered irrelevant by those who govern. More's the pity.

To those of us on the outside looking in, it appears that in the U.S. democratic system, the citizens of that democracy are considered irrelevant by those who govern. More's the pity. - CO

Please, spare us the comments from the cheap seats. For all of the faults the US has, we could still wipe the floor with all of the other countries on this planet, combined.

Canada is just grateful to be in our wake.

My vote: Rahm Emmanuel

I'll second that, Kimberly.

I really really want to taunt the leftoids over this, but that just wouldnt be nice.

Instead. Ill just be glad that Reid and Pelosi momentarily pulled their heads out and did the right thing.

Sadly, CO, here in America it isn't about liberal vs. conservative, it's about rich vs. poor, millionaires vs. working families. The millionaires keep gutting our economy and sending our babies to war by keeping the liberals fighting the conservatives, the whites fighting the minorities, and everyone afraid of everyone else.

The Democrats have to give better lip service to working families to get elected, but when push comes to shove, our "millionaire's club" government covers it's own behind first.

Iraq war designer Paul Wolfowitz, resigning the poverty-fighting World Bank, pays no taxes on his $400,000 parting gift. It's a wonder our collective heads don't explode.

But it's ok for even Democratic politicians to let the killing continue, because, amazingly, the sum total wealth of the half-million "excessive" dead Iraqi civilians doesn't equal the personal wealth of Mitt Romney or John Kerry. In America, money trumps everything, even life.

Sad, eh?

yeah, congressive. Especially when a George Soros Toadie is about to take over.

Yep, the same George Soros that made his billions in what could be regarded as money laundering.

Nice choice there.

Sadly, CO, here in America it isn't about liberal vs. conservative, it's about rich vs. poor, millionaires vs. working families. The millionaires keep gutting our economy and sending our babies to war - congressive

B,B,B, But congressive, you seemed to not have any trouble with capatilism and and the rich getting richer when it came to your liberal hero Johnny Edwards over on the other thread.

And I am surprised you would find fault with capitalism. He charges apparently what the market will bear, nothing more, nothing less. - congressive

No fault with capatilism right? And one other thing, NOBODY SENDS BABIES TO WARD. THEY ARE ALL MEN AND WOMEN AND VOLUNTEERED TO PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THEY ARE ALSO MUCH BETTER HUMAN BEINGS THAN YOU WILL EVER BE.

Cheers.

This is how that should have read. Hate when I type too fast.

No fault with capatilism right? And one other thing, NOBODY SENDS BABIES TO WAR. THEY ARE ALL MEN AND WOMEN WHO VOLUNTEERED TO PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THEY ARE ALSO MUCH BETTER HUMAN BEINGS THAN YOU WILL EVER BE.

In America, money trumps everything, even life. - congressive

I heard that. Any woman with enough money has the right to kill her unborn.

Sad, eh? - congressive

I am sure CO will welcome you with open arms in the tundra of Canada, where everyone gets along and nobody goes to war (because they live in the protective shadow of the US)

This is one most pathetic, liberal, drama queen whiny, juvenile posts I have read in along time.

Cheers

Liberals don't send babies to war. They sneak up on them in the womb and inject salt into their brains.

Good one, neocon!!

Actually, RS, they do have a "poll" going on after that thread. I voted for Reid several times. :-) It seems Raul - after helping the Dems win seats in '06 - is the loser, ahem ... the sacrifice, so far.

oops, I meant Rahm.

I agree with Kahn. This is not a Mission Accomplished moment. Beware of October.

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question. What is the mission and how will we know when we get there or is this just a way to say endless war in a way that no one will notice? Once the mission is truly accomplished, after its first defined will all of the discontent people who have suffered under our occupation all join the pro-Bush team or will they all just go away?

I am glad that it seems there will be no surrender date in the actual bill to provide support for our troops. As Americans we should all be rooting and praying for their success in their mission of defeating Al Qaeda and getting the Iraqi democracy to stand on its own feet. As we now know, Al Qaeda did in fact try to get cells in Iraq to attack America outside that country. It seems the attack in Jordan is the only one they pulled off. Support our troops!

First, neo, you gotta work on your perception of irony. It's a little rusty.

But you illustrated my point exactly. Poor attacking poor, while leaving out the "millionaire's club" from the debate.

Edwards will cover his own butt first, of this I have no doubt. He is slamming Dems for removing timelines to end the occupation, but that's easy for him, 'cause he ain't voting.

Abortion seems off-topic, but since you brought it up, I am not pro-abortion. I am not pro-life. I am pro-active. If a quarter of the money spent on fighting between the lifers and the choicers were spent on better contraceptive, even reversible sterilization, the choicers would have the choice of never getting unintentionally pregnant in the first place, and the lifers would have no abortions to freak them out. Problem solved. One less issue to divide us.

Can't have that...

the consultation I can take is that this will be the nail in the coffin of the Bush Agenda. He wanted it and he got it - and when it falls flat on its face - as we all know it will - he and his cronies will be the only ones to blame. They had their moment to retreat from their failed policies - but they chose to stick with them. I will promise you that this is will be looked back upon as a moment where history could have been changed but out of the idea that if you believe in something hard enough it will magically happen Bush refused to budge. It will be looked back on as a historic blunder..

Its off topic, but you guys HAVE to read this! Aparently ABC just released details of a covert CIA operation. They just committed treason.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

I am sure CO will welcome you with open arms in the tundra of Canada, where everyone gets along and nobody goes to war (because they live in the protective shadow of the US)

Posted by: neocon at May 23, 2007 12:01 AM

Yes, neocon, we do and have done so in the past, welcomed disillusioned Americans to the tundra of Canada but unfortunately, no, everyone does not get along. We have had our share of internal problems but so far we have been able to work them out without a civil war.

When you say Canada does not go to war, do you mean a pre-emptive strike kind of war on a country who did us no harm? You are right, we don't but, as you know, Canada has given up many of its brave men and women in world wars I and II and now in Afghanistan where on April 17, 2002 our first casualties, Pte. Nathan Smith, Pte. Richard Green, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Sgt. Marc Leger were killed not by the Taliban but by friendly fire from U.S. aircraft while on a pre-dawn training exercise. I know, I know, war is hell and friendly fire incidents happen all the time, they volunteered and they knew what they were getting into, yada, yada, yada.

We know you despise us for not jumping aboard with Bush's 'either you are with us or you are with the terrorists' rant and subsequent 'shock & awe' foray on Iraq but being a sovereign nation we are entitled to make our own decisions as to where we send our troops.

We know you despise us for not jumping aboard with Bush's 'either you are with us or you are with the terrorists' rant and subsequent 'shock & awe' foray on Iraq but being a sovereign nation we are entitled to make our own decisions as to where we send our troops. - CO

Again, a completely baseless accusation (We know you despise us) from the left.

I don't despise Canada at all. I just find it ironic that a small minority of Canadians (mainly in the liberal eastern part) continue to criticize the US, when in fact if it wasn't for our trade and proximity, Canada would hardly exist. The good people in Western Canada at least realize the import of that relationship and accord the due respect.

YAWN -- so Congressional Dems are big wimps scared of their own shadows -- no surprise. Wait for the results of the Surge. Don't be surprised when the next President brings this war to an ignominious end, with insurgents firing at our helicopters as we evacuate the Green Zone in 2009 amidst cheering Shias, who will then destroy Al-Qaeda-In-Iraq. Shortly after that, the next President will ban torture and end illegal wiretaps of American citizens. And Americans will feel SAFER. But maybe the Surge will succeed and Bush will win, but he has taken few steps in his Presidency to make anyone confident of that.

"The real enemy in the Global War on Terror is not the Axis of Evil but the Axis of Allies. Today, the countries most likely to produce another 9/11 are not Iran, much less North Korea, but countries long regarded as (after Israel) America's most reliable allies in the Greater Middle East. Step forward Saudi Arabia (almost certainly still the biggest source of funding for radical Islamists) and Pakistan (very definitely their one-stop shop for nuclear weaponry)." - Niall Ferguson, writing in hnn.us

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question. What is the mission and how will we know when we get there or is this just a way to say endless war in a way that no one will notice?

Libertyvu, your post apparently slipped through the idiot filter. See here for the answer.

I will promise you that this is will be looked back upon as a moment where history could have been changed but out of the idea that if you believe in something hard enough it will magically happen

Cross your heart and hope to die, or is this just another of your "write before thinking" moments?

It's my understanding that the bill will still be loaded up with pork and have a minimum wage bill attached; the only thing missing is the timetable.

When Bush signs the bill, democrats look like fools for giving up the timetable, but win everything else they wanted; just who won this round?

Why can't congress create a bill JUST for funding the war? Then another for building a friggin' border fence and adding border patrol? I just don't see the point of loading a bill meant to fund the war with a bunch of pork. Arrrgggh!

kblack,

Given your interpretation of what a lie is as demonstrated by your list of supposed proof of Bush lies a couple of days ago, how long do we have to wait before it is confirmed that you are a liar?

...this will be the nail in the coffin of the Bush Agenda.

...when it falls flat on its face - as we all know it will...

...this is will be looked back upon as a moment where history could have been changed ...

It will be looked back on as a historic blunder.

That's a lot of chances to lie there. I guess we'll have to wait and see how honest you are.

"Now's the time to keep on reminding our democrat legislators, kicking and screaming though they may be, of their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Of course we should remind Dem.'s of their duty to defend the Constitution. That's why they should impeach Bush and Cheney immediately.

"Keep in mind that they're under tremendous pressure right now from elements in their party, many with deep pockets, who wish only defeat for America."

Wait, I thought you guys kept saying that America DIDN'T vote to end the war in Iraq. So why are you now saying that the Dem.'s now have tremendous pressure to do so?

And who might be wishing for the defeat of America? How the #@!% would withdrawing from Iraq do anything to undermine the US (other than cutting off a source of that much-needed oil we're addicted to)?
If anything, wouldn't withdrawing make us stronger?
Our military'd be in a MUCH HIGHER state of readiness, al Qaeda in Iraq would be destroyed by the insurgency, and the National Guard, CIA, etc. etc. will be better able to commit their resources to Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden and to preventing attacks on the US.

If you guys keep living in your little fantasy world, we may have to...oh, wait, there isn't anything that we can do but tolerate your stupidity. And, ironically, that's part of what makes America great.

ThELefTYFoOL

...how long do we have to wait before it is confirmed that you are a liar?

It's already confirmed, Moe. Dr. Retard claims to have a PhD, yet he can't type a coherent sentence. He's a phony; he's a moron, and, as I've stated before, the world would be better off if the Islamofascists took his sorry arse hostage...

A mixed bag, but at least some good news:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1624697,00.html

Leftyfool: Our military'd be in a MUCH HIGHER state of readiness, al Qaeda in Iraq would be destroyed by the insurgency, and the National Guard, CIA, etc. etc. will be better able to commit their resources to Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden and to preventing attacks on the US.

Probably all true statements. But with regards to the Iraq part, how long do you suppose it would take for the insurgency to destroy AQ? What do you think would be involved, and what do you think the ultimate outcome would be?

Frankly, I don't see too many great alternatives. Maybe I'm pathetically blind, and a gross dead-ender, but I do think that if it is possible to support the Sunni population to reject AQ it will incentivize the Shias and Kurds to come to an agreement that includes the Sunnis in an equitable manner. It's unlikely that will ensure everlasting peace and stability, and certainly not in the near term. But it might get the chaos down to a manageable level.

Let me pose the following thought experiment to you: say it was a Dem president that got us into this mess. How would your opinion change? Try to be honest.

I'll be honest with you too: I think the country would be much better off if Bush and his entire administration were to step down tomorrow and give someone else a chance. Bush has so seriously undermined his credibility with Iraq's neighbors and significant portions of the international community that I think that whoever it is that replaces him will have a better chance at stabilizing the situation in Iraq and elsewhere than Bush has. Regretfully, that's not going to happen until Jan 2009. We're stuck with the guy until then. But that doesn't absolve anyone from advocating something stupid just out of spite.

I'll be honest with you too: I think the country would be much better off if Bush and his entire administration were to step down tomorrow and give someone else a chance.

C'mon, Rico; this is something I'd expect from some of the real kooks here--not from you. I'm a bit shocked. We must step outside...

keefer, something tells me you couldn't be that shocked. Sit down and have another beer.

This thread is downright dreary. Time for a little humor.

For all you lefty rads, go read Bob Kerry's article in Tuesday's WSJ. This man is a Vietnam vet (with real experience), former Dem Senator from Nebraska and very left on most items. He, like Senator Lieberman, supports the war in Iraq. And he does so intelligently, and eloquently. Amazingly, I would almost vote for him if he ran against Senator Hagel at this point. And, yes, he is thinking of running again, atleast that is the oppinion of the local Dems here in Nebraska.

"Bush has so seriously undermined his credibility with Iraq's neighbors and significant portions of the international community"

Buying into the neorad world view are we?

Consider the rightward (pro-American) movement since Bush lost all this credibility; Sarkozy (pro-American) elected in the Socialist Nirvana of France; Howard (pro-American) re-elected in a landslide in Australia; Germany rejects the French-butt-sniffing Chancellor Schroeder’s government in favor of rightist (and pro-American)Merkel; Canada’s conservatives swept into power led by (pro-American) Harper; (pro-American) British Prime Minister steps down and is replaced by (even more pro-American) Brown; Italy’s (pro-American) Berlusconi is the new power broker in his country after the radical left has collapsed under the weight of their incompetence and Anti-American hatred (sounds just like the team of Pelosi – Reid, don’t it?).

In fact, only Russia, China and the democrats are moving away from the US as allies.

What we need is more of that good old liberal-democrat consensus building of yesteryear; Jimmy Carter rallying world opinion as we (alone) boycotted the Olympics! What a glorious day for America’s image abroad, huh?

Or, there’s the time the world came to our support when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory; remember how world leaders were all over the evening news supporting Clinton’s efforts to distract the world from his perjury trial? Worldwide demonstrations in support of the US, ah … heady days indeed.

I’m just a stupid old conservative but, I’ll trade all that liberal good will and “credibility” for a few more real allies in the global war on Islamists. Maybe we should re-elect Bush for another four years and we’ll have Spain, Russia, China, and Venezuela anointing pro-American leadership.

Btw, who are these “significant portions of the international community" that have moved away from the US because of Bush? The NY Times?

How could Congress stab our troops in the back like this?

WHY DO YOU NOT PRINT ANY OF MY COMMENTS?! NONE OF THEM VIOLATE YOUR POLICY!

(Ed. Note: Now its because you claim we won't. For a couple days there, Matt was busy and I was away...now we're both available, but we just don't like people who claim we don't allow dissent...and have you thought of registering?)

(Ed. Note: Now its because you claim we won't.

Priceless!

Rathaven: Consider the rightward (pro-American) movement since Bush lost all this credibility; Sarkozy (pro-American) elected in the Socialist Nirvana of France; Howard (pro-American) re-elected in a landslide in Australia; Germany rejects the French-butt-sniffing Chancellor Schroeder’s government in favor of rightist (and pro-American)Merkel; Canada’s conservatives swept into power led by (pro-American) Harper; (pro-American) British Prime Minister steps down and is replaced by (even more pro-American) Brown; Italy’s (pro-American) Berlusconi is the new power broker in his country after the radical left has collapsed under the weight of their incompetence and Anti-American hatred (sounds just like the team of Pelosi – Reid, don’t it?).

I don't have time right now to argue my point as effectively as I could or should, but let me just say that as I see it, all of the examples you provided above had more to do with economic considerations (with the exception of Harper perhaps -- which had more to do with corruption scandals than anything else) than any sort of empathy for Bush's foreign policy. You might make something of a case for Merkel, but I think you'll fail in every other case. In fact, I think a better case could be made that Blair's fall is largely because he was perceived to be too close to Bush. As I understand it, Brown has pledged to withdraw the remaining British troops from Iraq should he be elected. Howard had a surprisingly difficult election against a relative unknown precisely because of his allegiance to Bush. It was also a factor in Berlusconi's defeat, but by no means the only one. One could argue the same in Spain.

But there's more to it than that. I'm afraid I just don't have the time to go into them, but consider Olmert's curious vacillations surrounding the Saudi sponsored peace initiative, Mushareff's recent concessions to the Taliban and AQ, Uzbekistan's decision to kick us out, the recent change of heart in Bush's stance toward NK, China's recent successful initiatives in various places in the Middle East and Africa, and it's hard to come away without the impression that maybe, just maybe, a better policy might have garnered better results. Lofty rhetoric is all well and good. But eventually you have to pay attention to how well the rubber meets the road.

say it was a Dem president that got us into this mess. How would your opinion change? Try to be honest.
--Ricorun

Rico, to be honest, at this point, my opinion'd probably be the same as it is now...only I'd want benchmarks that're determined by the prez to decide about the withdrawal deadline....

However, I probably would have supported going to war in the first place, but I would have been FURIOUS to learn that the prez had lied about the WMD and al Qaeda link...more angry than I am at Bush, because I'd have the feeling that a)he sorta betrayed all the voters who gave their vote to him (including me, probably), b)he'd have undermined Democratic credibility, and c)it's to be expected from Bush that he'll make mistakes, and big ones, knowingly or not, but unless the Dem. president was really stupid, I'd've not been expecting that. I mighta campaigned harder to end the war after that, and I'm not sure if I'd want an impeachment...it depends on the VP....although probably yes...

There, I've tried to be honest with myself and you.

ThELefTYFoOL

I'll be honest with you too: I think the country would be much better off if Bush and his entire administration were to step down tomorrow and give someone else a chance. Bush has so seriously undermined his credibility with Iraq's neighbors and significant portions of the international community that I think that whoever it is that replaces him will have a better chance at stabilizing the situation in Iraq and elsewhere than Bush has. Regretfully, that's not going to happen until Jan 2009. We're stuck with the guy until then. But that doesn't absolve anyone from advocating something stupid just out of spite.
--Ricorun

I'm glad to agree with you on all of that. But let me clarify about your assertion about spite and Iraq withdrawal and stuff.
The last statement in the excerpt from your post is true, but in the Dem.'s case, it's not a spiteful decision,it's a conclusion we reached after a look at the FACTS, and did a little analysis by ourselves. At least, that's how I got my stand.

So, what's your solution, Rico? Stay in Iraq forever?

ThELefTYFoOL