Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls: No Room For Compromise on Iraq

President Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill returns the debate over the war to square one.

The question for Democratic congressional leaders and the White House is how far is each side willing to push the fight over legislating a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Do Democrats take John Edwards's suggestion, as relayed in his new campaign ad, and "send [Bush] the same bill again and again"? Or should Democrats and Republicans in Congress work with the White House to find some sort of solution that isn't likely to give either side a complete political victory?

A Pew Research Center poll released on April 26 suggests that the American public favors the Edwards approach, with each side standing their ground rather than compromising.

Let's Parse the Polls!

Roughly six-in-ten people in the Pew sample (59 percent) said they want their member of Congress to back an Iraq funding bill that includes a timeline for American troops to begin withdrawing. Of that 59 percent, more than half (54 percent) said Democrats should "insist" on a timeline's inclusion in the legislation while 42 percent backed the party working with Republicans and the Bush Administration on a solution.

By contrast, only 33 percent of the overall sample said they preferred that their lawmaker oppose a timeline as part of the Iraq funding bill. But by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin, this minority said President Bush should stick to his guns and not compromise with Democrats.

Not surprisingly, Democrats surveyed by Pew were far more likely to back a bill that included a timeline than Republicans. Eighty percent of Democrats said they preferred that their congressman and senators vote for a bill with a timetable attached; just 31 percent of Republicans said the same.

"What the two sides share is a reluctance to compromise," reads the memo the Pew Research Center distributed with the poll.

Is a stalemate inevitable? Maybe not.

An examination of other internal numbers from the Pew poll suggest that Republicans may well have more to lose by standing pat than Democrats.

Independents surveyed by Pew strongly favored a bill with a timeline included -- by a margin of 61 percent to 33 percent. Of that 61 percent, more than half believe Democrats should refuse any compromise with the White House.

Likewise, independents surveyed in the Washington Post/ABC News April poll showed a similar bent. Fifty-seven percent said they trusted Democrats over Bush to handle the war in Iraq compared with 31 percent who chose the president over Democrats.

Remember that one of the keys to Democrats' gains in 2006 was that the majority of independent voters sided with Democrats, and that swing was largely due to souring on the war in Iraq. Independents -- at least in the Pew poll -- seem to have continued to line up behind the Democratic stance toward the war.

There's more.

Asked whether the "military effort in Iraq" is going well or not going well, 38 percent of the Pew respondents chose the former option while 59 percent chose the latter. Forty-one percent said the U.S. should "keep troops in" Iraq while 53 percent said the country should "bring troops home."

Even when you focus on Republican voters, it's clear that there exists momentum for change in Iraq. Forty-nine percent of Republicans said they would prefer a presidential candidate in 2008 that adopted a "different approach" from President Bush on Iraq, while 44 percent opted for a candidate who would continue Bush's policies. Add in Republican-leaning independents and the number of those who prefer a candidate with a different approach moves up to 54 percent.

Drill down a layer, however, and you start to see why -- despite displeasure toward the war among the broad American public -- that none of the three leading GOP presidential candidates has broken publicly with President Bush on Iraq policy.

Fifty-two percent of conservative Republicans want their next nominee to continue Bush's policies in Iraq while 40 percent want a change. This 12-point gap is not nearly as wide as it was in the earlier days of the conflict, but it shows that conservatives -- the ideological voting bloc most likely to determine the identity of the GOP nominee in 2008 -- still favor a stay-the-course mentality in Iraq.

(One intriguing sidenote: Arizona Sen. John McCain has taken a raft of grief from Democrats and many in the media for his continued support of Bush's policy in Iraq. And yet, among GOP voters who want to see the next president continue Bush's policies in Iraq, McCain trails former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 14 points in a hypothetical GOP primary match-up, according to Pew. McCain runs strongest against Giuliani among Republicans who don't believe the situation in Iraq is going well; Giuliani takes 31 percent among that bloc while McCain receives 30 percent support.)

Supporting the war may be a sound strategy for people like McCain, Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (all three of whom supported Bush's troop surge plan in Iraq), but holding that view is a MUCH riskier position for the group of Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states carried by the Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

That list includes Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (N.H.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.). Of this group, only Smith voted for the funding bill passed by the Senate that had a timetable for withdrawal attached. If Democrats continue to pursue a strategy of legislative confrontation on the bill, it will put increased pressure on these senators to reconsider their opposition.

In short, President Bush won the first major skirmish on Iraq with his veto yesterday, but polling suggests Democrats are better positioned to win the larger fight.

The Fix owes a big debt of gratitude to The Washington Post polling team of Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta. As they so often do, the two provided essential help in making sense of all these numbers.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 2, 2007; 8:15 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Picks: More on Gore
Next: Dodd Throws a Punch

Comments

In the end, before the elections enough republican legislators will fell the heat and go with impeachment to save their jobs, Even Hatch.

Posted by: Mike in Spring Valley | May 4, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I think that We the People have the Democrats figured out. They ran on ending the War in (on) Iraq. It is clear that they are going to take little baby steps that will be vetoed by the President. I say lay off the Republicans and start confronting the Democrats who have absolutely no intention of ending this war before the 2008 presidential election. They do not want their fingerprints on this war, although many of their distinguished and esteemed colleagues voted for it. The Dems are going to do nothing to speed up the end to this war. If they did, and things improved in Iraq, Bush would get the credit and the Dems would worry about their seats. So while both sides are playing pure politics and talking a good game, our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying or maimed for life. Who are these people that we elect? They do not seem to have human hearts.

Posted by: Maureen Murphy | May 3, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

With the Dems pushing so hard for withdrawal from Iraq, the party seems unaware that they may be making the job much harder for themselves should they get the chance to govern again someday.

After all, the United States has many vital strategic interests in the region, and it is not obvious how a plan no more elaborate than bringing our troops home from Iraq will protect, for instance, the free flow of affordable Persian Gulf oil.

Is there any real hope of a comprehensive deal with Syria? Of course not.

If a stable Iraq and Lebanon were in Damascus's "best interests," then the regime wouldn't have been working so hard to destabilize its two neighbors for the last several years.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton intends to visit Damascus in the coming weeks.

In Damascus they will find a negotiating partner who has been waiting several years now to sit at the table with the Americans, to look them in the face and talk nice, while they are helping to kill U.S. servicemen in Iraq.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/598bhsro.asp

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"It's hard to talk about peace between Israel and Palestinians when people elect a party who's platform is the destruction of Israel. This is but one example of the problems in the ME. So to answer your question, not a darn thing."

Its also hard to talk about peace when you rule out talking. Hamas may not be the ideal partner for peace in Palestine, but likewise the IRA wasn't an ideal partner in Ireland. Yet, once the Brits started talking with the political arm of the IRA, they were able to negotiate peace. Likewise, Bush needs to move past his self-imposed roadblocks to diplomacy and sit down with people he might not particularly care for.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

roo,
I believe that the roadmap did (does) have a two state solution. Clinton had a two state solution going. The problem is that the Palestinian government (Hamas) does NOT. You will have to find some other problem to blame the US for.

Posted by: Dave! | May 3, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Dave!--Yes, there has been a lot of effort put in the Israel-situation.

Sort of like you can put a lot of effort into pushing a door to get in when the door opens outwards.

When the U.S. actually accepts that the two-state solution is the only possible successful one, we might get somewhere.

Posted by: roo | May 2, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Kay D.
"No solution to the problem at hand. Bush upset the apple cart when he stormed into Iraq and unleashed a civil war onto the people of Iraq." Well, when the solution is to not try anything new, not be willing to change tactics or to withdraw the troops, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that there is no solution. I guess removing a mass murdering sadistic tyrant could be labeled as "upset[ing] the apple cart". So your implication that brutal suppression by a dictator masks and limits fighting between various groups is correct.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 10:39 PM | Report abuse

So many posters today want to affirm their righteousness or blame each other. That must be the inability to compromise CC suggested.

But...there will be a Middle East after the American led counter-insurgency in, or occupation of, Iraq concludes. It will continue to be the potential source of terrible problems for us and for the west for the rest of my life, at least.

Taking a long view that America has a positive role to play here has led me to similar conclusions to the Iraq Study Group or the Council of Foreign Relations.

Good Night, y'all.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 2, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"What would happen to peace in the Middle East if the President put as much effort into supporting peace as does avoiding it?"
Well, there has been a lot of effort put into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what has happened? Suicide bombings, kidnappings, targeted killings, an election of terrorists to run the Palestinian territories, a continuation of the occupation, etc. If you recall, there was a "roadmap" that both sides failed to live up to. It's hard to talk about peace between Israel and Palestinians when people elect a party who's platform is the destruction of Israel. This is but one example of the problems in the ME. So to answer your question, not a darn thing.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

To Jeff_F_F: With over 3,000 American servicepeople dead, and more dying every day, it is not a question of what is "portrayed" in the news, but the realities of what our military is facing every day on the ground. The situation in Iraq has devolved into a civil war, and having our military personnel right in the line of fire does no one -- lease of all Americans -- any good.

The world has been waiting for the "if" that you imagine (i.e., declining violence) for more than 4 years now. It's time to face the realities of what war really is: No solution to the problem at hand. Bush upset the apple cart when he stormed into Iraq and unleashed a civil war onto the people of Iraq. This was something that the most learned people already knew before the War on Iraq began. Even the elder Bush knew that it was foolish to invade Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War. It would have been wonderful if the younger Bush had been that wise.

Posted by: Kay D. | May 2, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

All of this assumes that the war is going as badly as what we see portrayed in the news. If the surge really is working and violence really is declining, those who were so vocal calling the surge a failure and saying that the war is lost will be in a very cold and lonely place.

Posted by: Jeff_F_F | May 2, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Very well said jhjbyer.

If America does not want to fear the world, we need to quit arming and causing conflict with it. The same goes for the earth.

Posted by: Jkrish | May 2, 2007 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Bush has shown that intransigency does not advance anything. Pelosi, Reid and Bush have to talk. However, the debate must also be public. The Democrats have to articulate their case publicly and gain public support so that Bush is aware that his stance is rejected by the public. A Stand-off is foolish. Nevertheless, there is no need to rush amendments through. Bush should have to sweat it out. The more he argues his case in public the more the public will see how isolated and unconvincing he is.

Posted by: Robert James | May 2, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

To better appreciate the insights offered by rufus1133 and william t street [above] it helps to recall that this conviction that our being in Iraq keeps Al Qaeda away was unheard of before the clamor to bring home the troops drove the administration to rationalize continuing the so-called war they,re afraid to lose, never mind that the only thing left to win is more loss. No military intel, no expertise on terrorism, no evidence at all has been presented in support of what has nonetheless gone from mere convenient speculation to cause belli. It would be a shameful policy, indeed, and one to make of us all cowards, if it were true. How dare we use another people,s country for our own fight, just so they suffer the collateral damage and not us. How can conservatives, who claim moral superiority, stomach something so immoral? And if that,s our policy, why not simply occupy, with their kind permission, one of the remoter Canadian provinces and draw Al Qaeda there? We,d save a mint on transporting our precious troops for bait, All the convenience plus cool summers. Do you think Al Quaeda might balk? Because they don,t speak the local language, understand the culture, blend in, or share common cause with Canadians? We didn,t let that keep us out Iraq, but then we had an army, a navy... Too many rifles for their taste in Canadian hands? [More per capita than in the U.S.] Speaking of the U.S., it could be our proximity in sufficient numbers with our home school advantage that keeps them in the Middle East like it did all those years it took to plot one attack, 911, a stunt that according to our intel they no longer have the capability of implementing, thanks to our fruitful work in Afghanistan, which is not complete, and apparently never will be, owing to Bush,s lack of genuine concern for our security, as evidenced by his continuing to deplete our military readiness in disregard of warnings by generals who actually care.

Posted by: jhjbyer | May 2, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Friedman's NY Times column today precipitated this post, not particularly because he deserves it, or because he provoked it, but basically because it was his column today that was the latest bit of Pollyanna Pabulum to spring from the Big Elephant fairy tale machine. Like Cal Thomas, and George Will, and Charles Krauthammer and all the other self deceivers, he has assumed three basic axioms that aren't actually so. He assumes that there was ever any rational thought given to getting us into this war, and that there is actually some thought taking place at some proximity to the White House to actually resolve the problems caused by the Neocon/Rumsfield Fairy Tale implementation, and he assumes that there exists some concatenation of circumstances that could be described as "Victory" in Iraq.

We may deal with the last invalid axiom first. There aren't even half a dozen Republicans who can actually specify some state that they would call victory, and no two of them would in fact agree on what constitutes victory. The only agreement among republicans is that leaving Iraq, or any solution reached by Democrats is DEFEAT!! That being so, every Republican call to win is a call for a never ending U. S. military presence in the mess in Iraq. No Republican will even begin to deal with the implications of this dicta, so that no conservative promulgation has any basis in reality. The only Republican end to this story is "... and they all lived happily ever after. The End." Obviously there is no arguing with this position.

As for there being any actual thought being given to resolving the Iraqi Problem, the utter lack of evidence available to show that such intellectual effort is taking place is prima facie evidence that no such intellectual effort is taking place. We are at the point where we can invoke the maxim of the law, "Innocent until proven guilty". Until George can be proven guilty of actually thinking about any aspect of this mess, he and his administration must be assumed to be innocent of the slightest effort to resolve the problem.

Rational thought about getting into this war? Not on George's watch, brother.

In fact, except to anticipate that this war would be compared to A Viet Nam War, thereby preparing the whole draft dodging bunch to deny any similarity to Viet Nam at the first q and u coming out of a Democrat's mouth, forethought and prescience were absent as a matter of policy.

They still aren't aware that the Dems are comparing them to the wrong Indochinese war.

George is really reliving the French experience at liberating Indo China from the Japanese. The French went in assuming that the Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian people would be so grateful for ending Japanese occupation that they would willingly go back to letting Michelin and associates rob them blind. When that didn't happen France could never quite come up with a Theory of operations, or a Strategy, or even meaningful tactics to accomplish anything that might look like Victory. Eventually they put enough French troops into a situation where their utter annihilation was a looming possibility and had to write off the whole exercise and go home. In between they produced lots of material for books like "The Street Without Joy"

George et Cie followed France faithfully, right up till now, where by scattering what insufficient force we have in country efficiently, we can be put through our own Dien Bien Phu, with hundreds of minor outposts being over run and eradicated during a dismal winter, thereby showing the bankruptcy of the Neocon/Rumsfield theory of dealing with wars of national liberation. If the Republicans think that what the Dems want is a defeat, what will Cheney's Geneva Peace Accords look like in comparison? Like France, but for far different reasons, the U. S. was dragged into this quagmire with no planning, vastly insufficient Forces, no meaningful doctrine, and no particular backing at home. France wasn't big enough to man or fund the First Indochina War properly, and George et al were basically too parsimonious to fund the war, and too desperate to get it started to ever try to properly man it. Now they dare not mention raising sufficient troops to even stand a chance of meeting even their own limited understanding of a successful campaign. Thus while lots of Republicans are willing to demand "Whatever It Takes To Win", they are unwilling to demand just what it would take to have a chance to prevail.

In Essence, to stand some chance in what George calls "The Global War On Terror" will require a standing Army of between 2.5 and 3 million men, heavily loaded with military tail. It will easily require about ten times the current ongoing costs, and it will require heavy taxes to support this process.

Find me just one Republican with the courage to propound this doctrine.

"Bring the Troops Home NOW!!!

Posted by: crazycattail | May 2, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I see it is business as usual today. And I had such high hopes after yesterday.

Posted by: roo | May 2, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Solutions are hard ..a good start would be to sever Carl Rove, Tom Delay, and W from influence.

Posted by: Chance | May 2, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

anon poster, you think I post from the Chamber of Commerce? LOL

I guess they'd really love my position on illegal immigration - keep 'em out! Build a fence! Kick out all those who are here against the law!

I'm reasonably sure that the COC would prefer the cheap labor...

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I didn't want to assume. Well you are the woman drindl. :)

Sorry if I offended the troll lurking in the shadows. I know you have such delicate sensebilities Razor or should I say Zouk

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Your the man/woman drindl

Indeed

Posted by: spindl | May 2, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

woman, rufus. pleased to meet ya.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

What is a zouk?

Posted by: Taylor | May 2, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

That's what's up drindle. They also got these hate merchants like rush/coulter/hannity/o'reilly/savage play their fears like a violin. It's would be sad it they weren't so damn evil about it. It would be sad if they didn't turn that fear and hate against their own people. WE know this was all for money to the few. People who only what Fox "News", they don't know that. Your the man/woman drindl

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

you spend all your time p*ssing your pants

I am having difficulty with my Depends today so I am curretnly obsessed with scatology.
you just make sh*t up

Posted by: spindl | May 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Zouk - Never been to KOS or on the DNC website.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

koz is the dregs, the lowest common denominator in the threadbare rags of what's left of failed convsrsatism, which will be finished by 2008. maybe then he'll go away like he used to promise.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

The 'facts' I present are just that -- facts, carefully documented and sourced

coming from drindl - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

IC - Although you usually present less reasoned material than even dingbat drindl, much of it appears to be simply daily Kos and DNC material. It's as if you take the material on faith and never think how slanted it is in one direction.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

JD, you sure do scare easily. But that's the thing about you cons -- you spend all your time p*ssing your pants. Everything scares you. That's what makes you so violent. The 'facts' I present are just that -- facts, carefully documented and sourced. You just don't recognize them because you cons don't deal in facts -- you just make sh*t up.

And we represent, by and large, the mainstream in american thought right now. If that scares you, you should move to another country -- an authoritarian place like Russia or China should appeal to you.

I have no blind hatred of anyone. I dislike bush becuaze he is exceptionally stupid and destroying my country.

As for doing something rash, it's all you winger gun nuts that are constantly wading into crowds of schoolchildren and mowing them down. We aren't the violent ones -- it's your side that's always jumping up and down and screaming nuke 'em. Take a look in the mirror sometime.

Here's William Buckley today -- does his 'leftis' ideology scare you too?

'The testimony reveals the CIA run by a man who cannot think straight, advising the national security adviser, who went on to make false allegations, and the vice president, who made even more false allegations, and the president, who took ill-considered and disastrous actions.'

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

From my boys at crooksandliars.com

The Democrats promised to conduct oversight when they took control of Congress and boy, are they delivering. On Monday, the Senate Oversight Committee held a hearing dealing with Halliburton and their exploitation of a loophole in U.S. law that allowed the company to use foreign subsidiaries in order to do business with terrorist states - namely, Iran. This clip shows Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) grilling Sherry Williams, V.P. and Corporate Secretary for Halliburton about the company's deplorable ethics and questionable practices.

Download (119) | Play (94) Download (51) | Play (69)

Vice President Cheney continues to recieve his hefty pension from Halliburton, all the while knowing that that money is being earned with the blood of American soldiers. These people have no morals and no conscience. It's all about the almighty dollar, screw the troops and screw the American people. They're going to get thiers no matter where the money comes from and how many people have to die to get it. This isn't new by any means, but getting these scumbags in front of Congress and forcing them to answer for their disgusting business practices is, and it's about time. Enjoy the show...

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad I scare you. I'll admit the right-wing attack machine USED to scare me. That was before the 07' elections :). Now your just sad. Get out of you cave buddy. I know it's really bright at first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

JD - Although you usually present more reasoned material than Zouk, much of it appears to be simply Chamber of Commerce and RNC material. It's as if you take the material on faith and never think how slanted it is in one direction.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

JEP, drindl, and rufus, you 3 really need to get out more. Your hardcore leftist ideology frankly scares me.

Also, your 'facts' on this blog are so far divorced from reality, I fear that your blind hatred of Bush will drive you all to something extreme.

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Check this out. Bill O eats his words. For anyone who's interested.

Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor'
Commentator uses name-calling more than once every seven seconds in 'Talking Points Memo'

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

That is called a threat trotsky. That is like the rudy comment of vote democrat and die. Who has the power to make these calls. To me only people who have contact's in the arab world can make these threats SPEAKING FOR WHAT THE TERRORIST WILL DO.

Are you saying bush is an ally with the same terrorist WE are fighting?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

critter69, you ain't from USM/USN are you?

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Those who profit from the war should pay for the war."

you mean like innocent americans from all walks of life who aren't getting killed on public transportation by bombers?

Is there anything under the sun that you dopes don't think is taxable?

If you really want an advantage create an intelligence tax. Democrats would obviosly be immune.

drindl - if you ever get an idea, we will be happy to ignore it. and no cries for mommy.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

There are no coincidences, only conspiracies. we all know Bush did it.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Drindl is FOR censorship, on comment which is characteristic of what this Administration and its ilk have been saying since 09/11/01?

Drindl - your idea is one best ignored.

The Law of Unitended Conmsequences - Chis censors you before he censors Zouk.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

slt notes that "Models are only as good as what is truly known about a system."

Agreed. The phenomena described in the piece I saw was called 'global dimming.' The premise is that increased particulate matter in the upper atmosphere facilitates cloud formation, which reflects more of the sun's energy, so less reaches the surface below. Widescale pollution thus changes weather patterns because less of the sun's energy reaches the planet's surface. Some scientists in the piece also speculated that this 'global dimming' effect resulted in underpredicting the actual impact of global warming from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I wouldn't call the story definitive, but interesting. Definitive proof of African drought? Maybe not; but then again, when particulate pollution was reduced, the rains returned to central africa. Perhaps this was only coincidence.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

That's 100% KAy D. From a ex-army infantry soldier. War's only goal is to FEED itself. The right know's this. They are not as ignorant as they would have you believe. Look at what all politicans do, not what they say. They can say anything. Fox "News" says it's against fascism. Bill O starts sentences with, " I don't want to demonize anybody, BUT." Watch what they do

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Congress should pass the funds, but with no deadline.

Instead, insert a provision for an increase in taxes on business to fund the war. Businesses that profit from this war, such as KBR, Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Health Net, L-3 Communications Holdings, Honeywell Inc., Hughes, Rockwell, Textron, etc. Also, add a tax (10%?) on the stock dividends received from all companies profiting from the war. Those who profit from the war should pay for the war.

In addition, place an additional tax (10%?) of total compensation on any executive of any business whose TOTAL compensation is more than 30 times the average pay of the employees of the company. Since average pay across the US is approximately $35,000, most making more than $1,000,000 would be included.

Wonder what Bushie would say in his veto statement?

Posted by: critter69 | May 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Truth or consequences

Not in the Democrat/Liberal vocabulary.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,

Models are only as good as what is truly known about a system. Our knowledge about the atmosphere (i.e., cost a lot of money to run those studies) is limited and the exactness of our models less than idea. If the melt off of ice at the poles is truly 30 years ahead of schedule then it tells us we do not understand our system. It means that temperature increases in the atmosphere are not as related to the melting off as modelers thought. It may be there are other factors unrelated to temperature that are responsible for this melt off or those temperatures have a greater impact on the melt off. A model is only as good as it predicts and if it can not predict well then its not a reliable. I am not saying global warming is not real only do not put a lot of faith in models.

You also say PBS now blames particulates from NA for the past famines in Africa which I would add is highly speculative with almost no ground truthing. If particulate matter (PM) was the cause of famine in Ethiopia how were they also the cause for the lower temperatures in the 60 and 70s (some people were predicting global cooling...mini ice age at the time) prior to our run-up in temperature since the late 70s. I would expect that famines in the 60 and 70s would have been even worse or the thought that lowering temperatures in the 60 and 70s were caused by increased PM is wrong. This shows how complex our system is and the difficulty in making predictions (i.e., contradictory data sets).

Modeler's believe that their model is prefect while experimental scientists such as myself question if we measured all our parameters correctly. However, it's the modelers who are taking our data and making prediction. I just wish they would add the caveats that I add to my papers.

Posted by: slt | May 2, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"War is never the answer to any problem."

I am quite sure that Hitler and others would have loved to hear those words. While I agree it is not the most palatable and may not be the correct option at the time, unfortunately War IS sometimes the ONLY answer to a problem. If we don't agree with a war we must not merely disagree because we don't like it. Hell, no one likes it!! Find the alternatives!!

Not so fast!! Cutting and running, sticking our heads in the sand is not an option either.

Its too easy to arm-chair quaterback after the fact.The options must be real and they must be achievable regardless of your political tendancies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Blarg notes
"All of the major newspapers and media outlets believed that Saddam had WMDs and that war was necessary."

Well, that's what happens when you're shown selectively leaked intelligence reports. Judi Miller's involvement in spreading false rumors precedes the Plame leak.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Please censor anything I don't like. all this truth is causing me to wonder if my source of information is good anymore. I am so used to Dem lies, I can't tolerate anything stopping me from my fictions. you may have noticed that's exactly why I come here -- to vomit and p*ss on the floor with my insulting and moronic drivel. you will never find anything of import with my name on it.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The press supported the war in Iraq for a long time. Before the war, anti-war voices were shut out of the media. All of the major newspapers and media outlets believed that Saddam had WMDs and that war was necessary. (So much for the old "liberal media" strawman.) The media turned on the war as it became more obvious that the occupation wasn't going well, and that we invaded under false pretenses.

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

drindl, there's a link at the top, next to the 'Comments' header.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

What would happen to peace in the Middle East if the President put as much effort into supporting peace as does avoiding it?

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Remember the day koz wasn't on here, how it didn't sound like a kindergarten? That's exactly why he comes here -- to vomit and p*ss on the floor with his insulting and moronic drivel.

CC -- I would like to ask you to put up the email address to report objectionable comments, like the above, equating democrats and terrorists. It's sickeningly abusive and i would like it removed. There was a link in the Post a Comment section for a while and now it's gone.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous poster queries: "What would happen in the war in Iraq and to the terrorists across the world if our PRESS/PEOPLE put as much effort into supporting the war that they do in trying to sabotage it? "

My answer: There would be even more bloodshed than we have now. Why would we want that? And why would you assume that anyone would really support war? War is never the answer to any problem. War is only death, destruction and instability.
Which is why it is ridiculous for our president to say that he is bringing stability to the region by waging war on a country.

It is not the job of the American people or the press to be cheerleaders for war. War should never be condoned because it never solves any problem. War only creates more problems.

Posted by: Kay D. | May 2, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

'what would happen in the conduct of our foreign policy if idiots like koz and the moron administration he supports had any brains whatsoever?'

THERE GOES THAT SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION AGAIN!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

We need those senate seats. If soldiers die in the process - too bad.

Posted by: dirty Harry | May 2, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

We win, they lose (Dems and terrorists that is), understand?

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

'What would happen in the war in Iraq and to the terrorists across the world if our press put as much effort into supporting the war that they do in trying to sabotage it?'

Q. 'what would happen in the conduct of our foreign policy if idiots like koz and the moron administration he supports had any brains whatsoever?'

A. 3000 young americans would not be dead.

and there was NEVER a bigger cheerleader for any war than the american press was for this one.

Note to moron: Reporting the news is not sabotage. It's called one of the rights we are guanteed by the Consjtitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

What would happen in the war in Iraq and to the terrorists across the world if our PEOPLE put as much effort into supporting the war that they do in trying to sabotage it?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What would happen in the war in Iraq and to the terrorists across the world if our press put as much effort into supporting the war that they do in trying to sabotage it?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The Congress did the right thing. They passed a bill which allowed funding so that our military can have the necessities to do their job, while directing Bush to establish a timeline for withdrawal. Bush, however, continues to bury his head in the sand and refuse to accept that this war is only causing more and more problems for this country, and solving none of our real problems. Even if you are willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thought he was doing the right thing at the time that he sent troops into Iraq, any thoughtful human being would have long ago taken stock of the situation and determined that our effort in Iraq has caused nothing but trouble. Not our president, though. He refuses to budge from his position one inch and actually consider a different strategy for our presence in Iraq. Subsequently, he costs more and more American lives every single day.

I believe the Congress should stick to their principles and refuse to present President Bush with a bill that does not establish a timeline for withdrawal. Wars cannot be endless. Sooner or later, the U.S. will have to leave Iraq. President Bush and his advisors prefer to waste their time and energy on re-spinning their position on our presence in Iraq, as opposed to dealing with the realities that our troops are more imperiled every day they spend in Iraq.

It is just so sad that one of only two vetoes of Bush's entire presidency comes at the expense of our troops. Why must Bush constantly burden our troops with his thoughtlessness? It is such a slap in the face to every man and woman serving in the military, as well as their families!

Posted by: Kay D. | May 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The truth is most likely half-way between the two of you.

Posted by: don't tell anybody | May 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The idea that anbar is getitng safer is the talking point of the day, all over the winger blogs--bush said it in that rambling madness he called a 'speech'

He also said this:

..."But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Yet for all the indications of a heartening turnaround in Anbar, the situation, as it appeared during more than a week spent with American troops in Ramadi and Falluja in early April, is at best uneasy and fragile.

Municipal services remain a wreck; local governments, while reviving, are still barely functioning; and years of fighting have damaged much of Ramadi.

The insurgency in Anbar -- a mix of Islamic militants, former Baathists and recalcitrant tribesmen -- still thrives among the province's overwhelmingly Sunni population, killing American and Iraqi security forces and civilians alike. [This was underscored by three suicide car-bomb attacks in Ramadi on Monday and Tuesday, in which at least 15 people were killed and 47 were wounded, American officials said. Eight American service members -- five marines and three soldiers -- were killed in two attacks on Thursday and Friday in Anbar, the American military said.]

Furthermore, some American officials readily acknowledge that they have entered an uncertain marriage of convenience with the tribes, some of whom were themselves involved in the insurgency, to one extent or another.

Posted by: don't tell Bush (not that he'd listen) | May 2, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

don't tell harry - One of my sons is stationed in Anbar. The main road is called "IED Alley". It's worse. Prior to his last leave he was on duty for four straight days without sleep. It's bad and getting a lot worse. The Shia militia's have driven most of the Sunni's out of Baghdad and they have taken up residence in Anbar towns and villages and *welcome* Al Qaida as their protectors. You wouldn't last 24 hours there without round the clock troop protection. No U.S. personnel go out in squads of less than 12 and are armed at all times - ROE is "cocked and ready". As for the markets, they have always been open. It's where Iraqi's buy their food. When the mysteriously close up early is when U.S. troops call in for support.....

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

don't tell harry - One of my sons is stationed in Anbar. The main road is called "IED Alley". It's worse. Prior to his last leave he was on duty for four straight days without sleep. It's bad and getting a lot worse. The Shia militia's have driven most of the Sunni's out of Baghdad and they have taken up residence in Anbar towns and villages and *welcome* Al Qaida as their protectors. You wouldn't last 24 hours there without round the clock troop protection. No U.S. personnel go out in s1uads of less than 12 and are armed at all times. As for the markets, they have always been open. It's where Iraqi's buy their food. When the mysteriously close up early is when U.S. troops call in for support.....

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

DOJ official to fired US Attorney Bud Cummins: circumventing the senate was the "White House plan."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh surprise, surprise. After Carol Lam was fired last December, she had a conversation with DOJ official Michael Elston. When Lam asked to be able to stay on briefly to oversee certain key cases. Elston told her she had to be gone in "weeks, not months" and that the order for her firing was "coming from the very highest levels of the government."

'Very highest levels of the government'. I don't think Monica Goodling or Kyle Sampson count in that category, do they?

Also of interest, given the DOJ's cover story for Lam's firing, Lam called Deputy AG McNulty and asked why she was being fired. According to Lam: "He responded that he wanted some time to think about how to answer that question because he didn't want to give me an answer 'that would lead' me down the wrong route. He added that he knew I had personally taken on a long trial and he had great respect for me. Mr. McNulty never responded to my question."

I guess no one had clued McNulty in on the 'immigration enforcement' talking points.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

That's it Trotsky, dodge and weave! Your leader was a dodger, a draft dodger, and is still a coward and a drunk. But, all conservatives are either drunks or druggies aren't they? Back to reality, Trotsky. The subject at hand is getting our children out of harms way and that madman, that jerk, that idiot, that fool you call "president", has caused too much heartache, caused the loss of too many lives, and the cheerleading jerks on the right that support him are as criminally liable as is he.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure someone like McCain can't win the general election based on his position. The only way it makes sense that majorities support both sides sticking to their guns is that poll-responders prefer people who have convictions more than they like people who agree with them.

Posted by: Doug | May 2, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html?ex=1335585600&en=56f686052b572dac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Posted by: don't tell harry | May 2, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy."

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28044

From Dershowitz no less.

"Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI"

a failure in so many ways that carter fool.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

'Confusion reigned in Iraq yesterday as varying reports about the possible death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader were circulated.

The cause of the confusion may have been cold hard cash, according to a senior Saudi intelligence official who said that bounty hunters often present body doubles in attempts to claim reward money on wanted terrorists.

Saudi and Jordanian intelligence services have been working with "tribal elements" to hunt down the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, said the source, who has been involved with the Saudi's operations in Anbar province in Iraq.

This effort, according to the source, involves the disbursement of cash rewards for any al Qaeda leader killed or captured.

The problem, however, is that in the past several months many of these tribal militias have unduly requested cash rewards, sometimes presenting bodies identified as associates of Mr. al Masri, who were not.'

too bad the msm is stupid or whipped enough to fall for this crap. how many times have they reported this guy dead? can't you people even try not to be rove's stenographers?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Yeah. I hear iraq is great in the spring. I'm thinking taking my kids their for vacation. We can get some cheap rugs :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The cons stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of movement conservatives in their quest to redefine reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus notes
"Tin foil. I read your little "iraq is great" marketing piece there."

Rufus, I think what he meant to say was that Iraq is going swimmingly & the troops will begin coming home in October.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

tinfoil hat squad - Ah, yes, another press release from thye boys at the Pentagon. WOuld this be the same Pentagon that now censors email, letters home, and blogs from active duty troops? The same Pentagon that, instead of buying a functional anti-RPG system from an Israeli firm, instead awarded a no bid contract to a defense contractor for such a system...to be delivered by 2011? O, the same Pentagon that cares soooo much for our wouned troops that they outsourced care for wouned soldiers to a Halliburton subsidiary (and thereby brought us Walter Reid and much much much worse care.....like my son's, who passed out cold from his wounds and laid there for two hours before someone noticed?). I could go on, but the Pentagon is composed of a bunch of career minded flunkies and Bush yes men. I wouldn't trust anything they had to say as far as I could projectile vomit.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse


How scary is this? The most powerful nation on earth run by one of earth's stupidest men:

'By the way, in the report it said, it is -- the government may have to put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's what we do. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander guy.'

The commander guy. The Moron in Chief. The Retardo from Hell.

Posted by: terrifying | May 2, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

small gov't @ work wrote
"People have eaten millions of chickens that were given feed tainted with recalled pet food, federal officials said Tuesday. They said the threat to human health is unknown."

Don't worry, SG, the bio-engineered chickens have been designed to withstand tainted food. You have nothing to worry about, just trust the Government.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Rep. McDermott (D) to Pay $700K for Illegal Phone Leak

Posted by: are any Dems not crooks? | May 2, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Tin foil. I read your little "iraq is great" marketing piece there. Wher eis the meat and potato's. How many soldiers lost last month? Was it the deadliest month yet? What about iraqi lives. no mention. I see there what is good for marketing and business. What about real people?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNN) -- People have eaten millions of chickens that were given feed tainted with recalled pet food, federal officials said Tuesday. They said the threat to human health is unknown.

Posted by: 'snaller governement' at work | May 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"the reason for the greatly reduced precipitation, you dummy? Climate change."

PBS broadcast a story the other night about how increased particulate matter in the atmosphere, primarily from North America, was responsible for moving the jet stream in the 80s, which caused the Ethiopian famine by blocking the usual summer rains from occuring.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Imagine how many names and cell phone numbers ABC News must have if they can hold off, in the middle of ratings sweeps, for days, until a Friday night, when hardly anyone is watching TV. Must be a lot of Democrats among the johns.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"did those same models predict warming on MARS?"

I couldn't say; the article had no mention of MARS.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - did those same models predict warming on MARS? you may want to recalibarate with some new variables. do you still think that CO2 is a pollutant? don't tell my trees that.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

'The research team found new evidence showing that lower precipitation--and not rising temperatures on the summit--is the main cause for the Kilimanjaro glaciers' retreat.'

--yes, and the reason for the greatly reduced precipitation, you dummy? Climate change. Christ you are a simpleton koz.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

'typical paranoid, elitist Liberal. your thoughts and policies are so weak they can stand up to no challenge.'

You see Judge -- obviously koz. As JEP siad, tinfoil hat, trotsky, all the delusional winger posts are by him. He posts every 2 minutes or so, for 7 HOURS A DAY.

Don;t tell me he doesn't get paid. I think Chris should be notified. The RNC started funding ringers and trolls last year before the election, and putting them on the bigger leftleaning sites and MSM blogs. Couple of my friends who run blogs outed them. [The webmaster can tell what server a post is coming from].

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

What, pray tell is this poor boy rambling about? Sabotage, "Right-wing conspiracy theory", games??

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/20070430.pdf

Iraq progress report. Do not share with liberals or DC/NY press. they will go blind. Instead, suggest sticking fingers in ears and wailing.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

anon wrote "more inconvenient facts for the church of Owlgore"

Perhaps. Did you see the other news on the enviro front? Apparently the climate models were too conservative - when applied retroactively, they predict far less arctic (and antarctic) melting than has already been measured. In other words, the melting that's already occurred wasn't predicted to happen for another 30 years.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

70% of Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. (As opposed to 21% who voted for their party's candidate.) Republicans made up 26% of the electorate in Connecticut. That means 18% of the Connecticut electorate was Republicans who voted for Lieberman. Lieberman won the election 50-40. Deny it all you want, but Lieberman won because Republicans voted for him instead of the Republican nominee.

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Dems did keep their 100 day promise of Pay-Go. Problem is, it only affects 2008 budget; they foolishly didn't include Iraq appropriations to the pay-go rules. Which really begs the question: why is Iraq funding still 'emergency' in nature? Didn't Bush see this one coming?

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post. The first one didn't take, I thought. Sorry for the rant.

THIS IS NOT A GAME PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This is not a game. OUR soldiers lifes are not pieces in risk. People are dying and starving everyday. THIS IS FUNNY TO YOU? I hate sabotoge of this country. I was 11B army infantry. The games you people play both with OUR coutry and the ,ilatary akes me sick. You WILL get yours. Your movement is over for ten years, maybe more. Go hid ein a cave like a good dittohead. Don't come on here to destroy any contructive debate. Your movement already did that to the government. Let the people have a blog without you destrying it with more propoganda and lies.

Peace to you. God will be your judge Razorback/zouk/tin foil. Not me

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The fabled snows of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro may not succumb to global climate change as quickly as scientists had feared. A joint Austrian-U.S. research team that took seven years of measurements from weather stations atop Africa's tallest mountain says that its ice fields will be around for another 30 to 40 years /snip/ The research team found new evidence showing that lower precipitation--and not rising temperatures on the summit--is the main cause for the Kilimanjaro glaciers' retreat.

more inconvenient facts for the church of Owlgore

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't like sabotoage. I don't think this is a game unlike you. People are dying. People are starving. This is not a game. Our soldiers lives are not games. I was army infantry 11B. The games you facsist play make me furious. You have sold this county out. I had hoped once eveyone KNEW fox news and rush were propoganda they would fall off. That didn't happen did it? You kept marching to that drumbeat following the walrus to the feast. THIS IS OT A GAME. The conservative movement makes me sick

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

...yes, and "|" can be interpreted to mean "nothing" as well as "anonymous", which can be rearranged to spell "anoy mous", which is misspelled but describes someone of insignificant interest who is merely annoying. (oops I forgot the "n"!)

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"you are disconnected from reality and have no interest in civil discourse." "You and your movement is full of facsist and tratiors. You will get yours. The lie has been exposed."--rufus1133

"which is interesting and rather descriptive of someone, so out of touch with reality, that they post the sort of nonsense this hick posts." "spelling and punctuation errors don't count unless you're an unemployed English major and a complete twit."--MikeB

SLOW DOWN GENTLEMEN!! THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH SUBSTANCE FOR TODAY!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"George W. Bush said his [favorite book] was The Raven, an old Pulitzer prize winning bio of Sam Houston that is readily available in Texas. Most interesting bit: Houston had the same problem Bush had."

I had no idea Sam Houston was a sociopathic coke freak, nor that he believed the Alamo to be a great success right up till such brains as he had were dashed out by Mexicans. History is fun!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

This guy has no idea who trosky even is. Just using more right-wing fear as talking points. You can't talk about what is. He will lose everytime. his only hope is sabotage. Just like the republican party. I call sabotage treason. I call selling your country out to line your pockets both being a tratiors and treason. How do you reaspone tin foil hat.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Lieberman ran as an independent and promised to conference with the Democrats, so as not not allow for a possible Republican majority. Furthermore. Lieberman ran as a mainstream Democrat on labor and other issues. His pro-Iraq stance was never a part of his campaign. Instead, he portayed his opponent as a far left radical that has only been nominated due to some "leftist" activists. tinfoil hat squad, before you go around posting utter nonsense, please check your facts. Facts count, spelling and punctuation errors don't.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"The letters in "Trotsky" can be rearranged to spell "skytrot"

- what passes for intellect on the left.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, stop making up things. Please name all those vetoed laws. I stated spending proposals, not laws. I am careful to use the proper words around Democrats because you never know when the word "is" might change meanings.

as for Liberman - yeah, whatever gets you through your day. the GOPS elected him. In connecticut.

I notice you avoided the broken campaign promise and corruption truth.


But I am sure your minions JEP, Dufas, drindl, ignorant coward et al will cover for you with some invented facts. More likely name calling and conspiracies knowing them.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Careful, Rufus!!

Your liberals are showing and their turning all blue and stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The letters in "Trotsky" can be rearranged to spell "skytrot", which is interesting and rather descriptive of someone, so out of touch with reality, that they post the sort of nonsense this hick posts. Earth to skytrot, spelling and punctuation errors don't count unless you're an unemployed English major and a complete twit.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman won with significant Republican support. The RNC decided they'd rather have Lieberman than a real Democrat, and threw their own nominee to the wolves. It's just that simple.

By the way, the Democrats in Congress have passed several laws. Bush just keeps vetoing them. Again, a simple fact that seems to have eluded you. And how can spending keep increasing if no laws are passed?

"Tinfoil hat squad", why don't you just post with your normal name? What's wrong with a little honesty?

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Rufas teaching about grammar, vocabulary and spelling. Hardy har har.

That's like Algore telling us to conserve energy. Or JEP admitting something is a coincidence. or drindl getting an econ notion correct. Or bill clinton lecturing us on abstinence. or murtha telling us about integrity. or harry reid mentioning patriotism. or, nevermind, the list of Democrat hypocrites and fools is just too long to imagine.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Through his own stupidity, KOZ made a valuable contribution to helping the Dems win back Congress.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

You win tin foil hat. Obviously, you are disconnected from reality and have no interest in civil discourse. All you can do is attack. OR "well a dem did this in 1856." You win we'll all leave the site because "you can't handle the truth.". Just know you can't live in that cave forever. The real world is, and you can't hide forever. You can't close you eyes and ears forever. You and your movement is full of facsist and tratiors. You will get yours. The lie has been exposed.

Peace in the middle east

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Why did Lieberman win? the ex VP nominee of the party was shunned for his pro-war views. the suicidal liberals in conn tried to force the issue by nominating Lamont. the moveon crowd was not able to win an election (still no victories) and the lose the war crowd was humiliated. the election was not about losing the war, as proven by this one instance.

But considering the Democrats did win the election, what have they done with their majority? Zero laws passed. zero campaign promises kept. corruption at all time high. spending increasing with every new proposal. and the moveon folks think they run the party now - yes, they do, into the ground.

When the president and the rest of the nation refuses to surrender and committ suicide, the rubes at Kos scratch their empty heads and can't figure out why they keep coming up short. Take a poll, it will make you feel better.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Facts, huh? FActs? You abviously don't know what the word FACT means. Here you go. This will help you in the future to determine for yourself "what is". So you know, not all polls or opinions are classified as fact. If you know what a word means before using it, that will help you in life.

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Congressman Dingell offered a Democratic plan to lower the price that Americans pay at the gas pump and reduce the cost of home heating oil.

http://democrats.org/a/2005/10/congressman_joh_2.php

those pesky facts again. Doesn't interfere with JEP's personal "reality" though.


"We have proposed a tough anti-price gouging law" - even though no evidence of gouging was ever found. We just like new laws that much.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

There is absolutely nothing the Democrats can do to the Republicans that will hurt them more than leaving them to stew with their unwinnable war.

The more funding they get, the fewer strings are attached, the less the GOP will be able to deflect blame for the catastrophe they made.

Full funding, no withdrawal timetable. This is what Republicans SAY they want, but it's actually what they most fear.

Give Bush the rope and he will hang the GOP. Congressional Republicans know this. They are desperate for a bill that will end the war. They just don't want their names on it.

Posted by: OD | May 2, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"By focusing on Bush hatred, liberals succeed in shifting the focus from their own failed policies. Much the same way third world dictators do. (Having a common enemy is a very powerful unifying factor.) By concentrating on all the real and imagined failings of Bush and America, the liberals can stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of secular progressives in their quest to redefine reality. Reality is what they say it is. End of debate. Sound familiar?"

Reverse this statement and you have the conservative movement in a nutshell. Sorry, speaking of reality. I have to assume the worst about this post. Otherwise, dittoheads will say, "yeah that's true. Liberals are doing that." I had to clarify just incase they missed it. Just incase they DON'T know fox/rush/hannity'oreilly
are liars and propogandsit. They will say anything for $$$$. Like Ann Coulter loves to say. "The worst things I say the more money I make." That to me is treason to me. That is elling out your country to me. Is this a time of war, or not? If so the rules apply to all. The right doesn't suppor tthe troops, they are not patriots. They are sell-outs and tratiors. Ship them all to Austraila wit their boy rupert murdock. Let him mold a new reality for them. They can live likes it's 1958 forever

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"liberals succeed"

Surely they will toss you out of the Federalist Wannabe Society for putting those two words together on the same page!!!

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

William - Your inane comment is why I find you right wingers so offensive. Look, the Islamists want to spread their silly religion around the region, retake Israel, etc. To be sure, they would likewise spread it to Europe and the U.S. They tried, and were partialy successful, back in the 1300 and 1400's. So what? If you want to really make the West safe, you would advocate using cruise missiles on every mosque and treat Muslims like they were memebers of the SS. Is that what you are advocating? You're not going to find many "takers" for that position.
We have experienced fanatics, spreading their twisted ideologies and religions throughout history. We've had Nazism, Marxism, Fundimentist Christianity, animal rights screwballs, NeoCOns and Naderites. All are whacked out and all eventually have been or will be consigned to the garbage heap of history. Islam, f we allowed it, would either moderate or will simply disappear. Same for the claptrap nonsense of Fundimentalism.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

That does sound like I've heard it before speaking of reality. :)

It's so funny watch fox "news". It comedy to me. I've seen them on their accusing leberals of being nazi's and fascist. It's the old elementary trick of "I know you are but what am I." Orwell called this doublethink and newspeak. Rather than saying, "hey that sounds a lot like fox." It turns a dittohead from thinking not about the argument, BUT THE COUNTER TO THAT ARGUEMEnt. Truth dosn't matter. I heard someone on fox say it best. "I am a soulless lawyer. I look at both sides." They said it not me. Soulless

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"the Democrats promised to lower it if elected"

...find a link to that fact and someone might believe it.

I know better.

And if memory serves, it seems we were all saying that, as soon as the election was over, prices would jump? It has not even been 6 months, and it is already over $3 a gallon.

So who was wrong?

Zuk's provided us with another example of how even defeat and shame can be spun into some sort of Republican victory delusion...

We gave em' lemons in November, now they think they'll make lemonade out of it. At least in terms of what they can accept or deny with such brainwashed brains.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

By focusing on Bush hatred, liberals succeed in shifting the focus from their own failed policies. Much the same way third world dictators do. (Having a common enemy is a very powerful unifying factor.) By concentrating on all the real and imagined failings of Bush and America, the liberals can stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of secular progressives in their quest to redefine reality. Reality is what they say it is. End of debate. Sound familiar?

http://rightbias.com/News/042707libs.aspx


Posted by: speaking of reality | May 2, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Dave!

Well, yes...a concept which I admit occasionally using (as opposed to, say, the the White House or its Justice Department, if by 'planning ahead' you mean trying to anticipate the long-term consequences of a proposed course of action)

Posted by: malis | May 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Dave at 1:52;
"How this translates into "Wall street really likes Democrats" is beyond me."

Wall Street has climbed more since the November elections than it has throughout Bush's entire tenure...

Prove me wrong, if you really know the story. Your arguments so far are just scrambling for good news about Republican's effect on the economy. The daily news suggests that kind of good news is very hard to find and even harder to justify.

But them's just facts, feel free to spin it to match your prejudice.

Surely there must be SOME OTHER explanation than the public having more confidence when Democrats rule.

God forbid, that should ever be proven to be true, it would take away one more Republican delusion, like "stronger on homeland security," or "more experienced in foreign policy." You know, the delusions they keep promoting to their brainwashed base (who apparently still feel the need to repeat it, regardless of the day-by-day evidence to the contrary, you would think they might be embarrasses to be wrong so often, but considering Bush and his policies, denial seems indemic and essential to the conservative cause.

Reality is a great experience! How unfortunate so many conservatives will never know it's joy...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

To much Fox for you willaim. Put that stuff down, it's bad for you. Who are the Islamists freinds in DC? Who was bush 41 meeting with on 9/10/01? Saudis? Who are his business partners? How about the hijackers? How about bin laden? Who is winning the most right now in right? Most would say Iran. What brought that vicotry to iran, the democrats? I think you need to look good and hard at the republicans. Not just what they say but what they do. What is happening as a result of actions. I don't know how you people can continue to call the dems terrorists. Eveything points to the republicans. From before 9/11 (rudy, bush, wworld trade center security was conencted to the bush family) and after ( mishandling of the war, no plan, lies lies lies.) Get your facts together. Otherwise you risk look like a dittohead

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

JEP - only one conspiracy today. you must be getting tired.

why is my gas price so high? the Democrats promised to lower it if elected. I thought you claimed it was easy to manipulate this market. Why are they making the poor suffer with high gas prices?

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Judge you seem to have a lot of personal knowledge on mind warping drugs."

An assertion supporting the concept that jumping to erroneous conclusions based on limited facts is common to unthinking R's everywhere.

"he used 'Lib' and 'moonbats' under trotsky yestereday..." Hmmm, maybe you're right.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 2, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

JEP do you substitute this conjecture for newswothy print? I don't like Gonzoles either, but at this point that is only an opinion, and from of all places, the "Left Angled Times"?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

JEP, you need to have your head examined. You say that the Islamists don't want to come here and mess with us. Wrong, dummy. You really need to do some reading other than the Democrat Party's line. The Democrats are going to get us all killed. Their instrument? The Islamists. Trouble is, they won't make a distinction between Republicans (red necks), and Democrats (appeasers). It really isn't good to fight a war using polls. Polls are generally answered by people who are ignorant of the facts. It appears that you are one.

Posted by: William | May 2, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"Is he your nemesis?"

No, KOZ, you are your own worst enemy, you don't need us to be a nemisis.

We just point it out whenever you prove it once again (and again, and again, ad infinitum)...

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed your thesaurus is getting dusty, haven't heard any of your contrived vocabularizations yet, but I would geuss I just haven't been back aboard long enough.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The president said today in a speech before the Associated General Contractors of America:

"But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down."

No more searching for weapons of mass destruction, no more powerful ally in the Middle East, no more "free and Democratic Iraq", no more "shining beacon of hope". Now success, according to the president, is simply "sectarian violence down". In other words, a return to what we had before we spent the hundreds of billions of dollars and the thousands of American lives and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, right, Mr. President?

"Either we'll succeed or we won't succeed."

In the game of lowering expectations, the president searches for the ultimate nadir...

Posted by: Mark F. | May 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

tinfoil hat squad
trotsky
king of soup

All the same peson.

And here's a conspiracy I just dug up, thanks to Elizabeth Holtzman (someone with real authority and not just self-important opinions)and the LATimes...

"NO MATTER how many members of Congress lose confidence in Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush is unlikely to let him go. If Gonzales resigns, the vacancy must be filled by a new presidential nominee, and the last thing the White House wants is a confirmation hearing. All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal"

It is a great article...
I know KOZ, in any manifestation, won't have the clear-mindedness to understand and consider the implications of this editorial, but most of you should get it...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

You misfits seem to have an unhealthy obsession with this koz guy. what gives? Is he your nemesis? Has he done something to aggravate you? do you have a life outside of counter-koz? can you create an argument for anything sensible without resorting to name calling and boogeymen?

do you all inhabit the same wing of St E's? Was it diagnosed as bush derangement syndrome?

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

JEP,
"Wall Street really likes Democrats, the stockmarket has been flying higher and higher since the Dems took back Congress." Got one word for you - stagflation. If your words were true, then the economy would have been great through the 70's as congress was controlled by Dems for all the 70's as well as having a Dem for a pres for almost half the decade (plus one can make the case that Nixon did not govern as a conservative on fiscal matters). Congress was split until the late 80's - 94 when the Dems controlled (note through the "Bush I recession"), and since then its been mostly republican controlled. Clinton, to his credit, was very centrist on his dealings with the economy. Plus he kept Greenspan. How this translates into "Wall street really likes Democrats" is beyond me.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

On point kchses. But why waste 5 minutes of your life trying to explain something the right already knows. "Bush didn't lie." How can a sane person argue against someone who posts that? Like I've said, and other on this site, the right is not as insane sa they would have you beleive. tHEY JUST HAVE TO LIE TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS. If they told the truth they would be gone. If Bush told the truth, we would be in this war. Him and his cronies wouldn't have made billions. It''s not about truth. THEIR MOVEMENT IS A TALKING POINT. Facsists. The whole right-wing conservative movement

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Judge you seem to have a lot of personal knowledge on mind warping drugs.

Drindl, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you. Are you still counting votes in FL?

JEP, whatever happened to the gas conspiracy, you remember, the one where Bush was controlling the price? It aligned nicely wtih your preposterous claim that the economy is in ruins. In all this time AWOL, you haven't managed to come up with one intelligent thought? the idea that Broder is a conservative is clear evidence of your delusions. Maybe talk to Judge about something stronger.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

JEP -- he used 'Lib' and 'moonbats' under trotsky yestereday...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

It's so much easier to say..."why should we", than "I am unable to"

Sorry Blarg try again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

To no facts please we're dems

Point 1: This is a fantasy of the reactionary right and talk radio deadheads that somehow the majority of the country can be classified as conservative. Polls only indicate less then a 1/3 consider themselves conservative.

Point 2: Sounds correct but only an extreme few on the left believe religion is the opiate of the people. Those few are not, contrary to the reactionary rights straw man arguments, representative of the left.

Point 3: Self evident.

Point 4: Again almost no one on the left thinks America is the "bad guy". This is more reactionary propaganda to demonize opponents. It serves only a selct fews interests and not the countries. As to "winnable" what exactly constitutes winning in Iraq? If you think Iraq will ever be an ally of the US you know nothing about the history, culture and politics of these people.

Point 5: One should be reasonably mindful of what your allies think of you. To disdain those who have historical and cultural ties to you just because you think their too leftwing is idiotic.

Point 6: Lieing is probably too strong. President Bush and VP Cheney willfully ignored intelligence reports because they thought they knew better. Guess not.

Point 7: The belief that America or conservatives "won" the Cold War and toppled the Soviet Union is childish and silly. No nation has ever possessed the power to decisevly influence a great political upheaven in another great nation on the other side of the world. In fact it is extemely likely that the Cold War helped propped up the Bolshivik regime after the death of Stalin. To suggest that the US was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is an insult to the memory of all those who did bring it about.

Point 8: Also self evident.

Point 9: Again self evident

Point 10: Its fascinating how no one has tweeked to the reality that the end of the Cold War is what strengthened the US economy. That the increase in our military budget is what has weakened it. We as usual are our own worst enemy...or more to the point the reactionary right is our own worst enemy. They think unlimited spending on the military is somehow good for us.

Point 11: Totally irrelevant what Saddam Hussein had and used on his own people. Simple fact, he had no way to use them against us. After that I couldn't care less.

Point 12: No comment. Both Bush's and Gore's behavior regarding the Florida recount was disgusting and not in the general interests of the country. Only their own narrow self interest.

Point 13: More disgusting behavior by the reactionary right who somehow believe everyone to th eleft of themselves are communists

Point 14: Who cares

Point 15: All I have to do is read the Washington Times to see such examples everyday or listen to talk radio. This point is hammered endlessly in the reactionary media

Point 16: Wawawa

Interesting that those who live in a conservative bubble believe that everyone else lives in a similiar bubble.

Posted by: kchses | May 2, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

koz-If you didn't use EXACTLY the same language and same straw men and red herrings, no matter what nome you post, it wouldn't be so easy to out you.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see a list of facts. I saw a list of assertions, some of which were provably false (like the one I already proved false), and the rest of which were just conjecture and opinion. ("Religion is good" is an opinion. "Most Americans believe..." is, at best, unproven.) And the whole thing was based on the ludicrous stance that the American media has a strong liberal bias. Why should we respond to it any more than we already have?

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: I dunno I can't see KOZ posting without the use of the prejoratives 'lib' and 'moonbat.' 'Trotsky' might be him if the floor supervisor in his ward is trying out a stronger medication like teflutixol.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 2, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse


JEP, how many conspiracies have you uncovered today? without you and Scully and Muldar, we would all be in the dark.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 2, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

'Cute drindl, I noticed you avioded the truths presented in "no facts" post.'

well, koz, if there had been any 'truths' in that half-baked delusional propaganda rant, I might have addressed them. But there weren't.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

so the response to a list of facts from the mutual admiration society is to insult king-of-zouk.

do you all inhabit the same rubber room together?

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:
LOL...
but from a very practical standpoint...I'm having trouble conjuring up any names that go well with "respected conservative" these days, they are all either fruitlessly re-spinning the old lies (Broder comes to mind) or they are prudently silent and obfuscatory (new word?).

I still can't bear to watch Fox News, but Newshounds (http://www.newshounds.us/) watches them for me, and it has become quite evident from their shrill, vitriolic pitch and desperate tactics that even the Fox Newsies are starting to see the writing on the wall, and it just doesn't match the propaganda Ailes is puts up on the teleprompter for them to promote...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I really hope you're joking, bsimon. Because I'd hate to think of anyone seriously making that argument.

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"Anne Coulter wrote a book called "Treason" accusing all liberals of being traitors. Limbaugh does it practically every day."

Blarg, the original poster asked for RESPECTED conservatives' quotes (emphasis added)....

HA Ha ha...

Too easy!

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanx, Drindl, I was hoping to flush him out of his latest nom-de-plume, (is that anything like a mushroom cloud?)

I sort of figured he was still behind the scenes, hiding from The Truth like all the rest of the embarrasingly discredited Republican trolls seem to be doing these days.

So many of them who have finally admitted defeat are just bitter losers, it worries me how desperate they are to convert their delusions into reality.

Like Romney wooing the Scientologists, their only loyalty is to those who agree with them for the moment.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"I'm afraid the 'wind' is coming from a slightly lower part of his body"

Cute drindl, I noticed you avioded the truths presented in "no facts" post.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Re: the observation that Mara Liasson is on Fox...

It has always been my belief that including Ms Liasson and Juan Williams as the 'liberal' contributors to Fox News Sunday is nothing more than an effort to paint NPR as a liberal leaning organization. I'll give you Williams as a Liberal; but Ms Liasson seems to have plain old common sense & fairly unbiased reporting.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

That's right JEP. O'Reilly LOVES to tell eveybody what liberals are really thinking. Unfortunaly, everyone who is not a right wing lunatic is a liberal these days. That or a terrorist. The right loves to classify. That's why mos look/act/speck like ronald reagan. Like mormon clones. What happened to originality/freedom? I hope George Bush isn't reading this, I'm scared :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Point 15: Most Google searches trying to find examples of respected conservatives calling liberals or Democrats 'unpatriotic' or 'un-American' would be fruitless. But examples of leading Democrats calling Republicans or conservatives 'un-American' are multitudinous."

That's a load of crap! Anne Coulter wrote a book called "Treason" accusing all liberals of being traitors. Limbaugh does it practically every day. There were plenty of conservative bloggers in 2004 saying that Kerry should be tried for treason. Hell, further up on this page, someone called for Reid and Pelosi to be tried for treason!

Calling liberals un-American or unpatriotic is a standard part of the right-wing arsenal. Even by the standards of that ridiculous list, this stands out as an especially ludicrous statement.

Posted by: Blarg | May 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Don't make me laugh, koz. Your writing style and obsessions are a dead giveaway, a signature. You're a clown. Do you not know how obvious you are. Please. You just make yourself look like more of a fool.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"typical paranoid, elitist Liberal."

Sorry Trotsky, you lose,

...there's no such thing as a "typical" liberal, any more than someone can claim to speak for "ordinary Americans."...

That term is just a common, transparent blanket insult regularly leveled by conservbatives whenever they lose another debate.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The Dems gain ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from capitulation. Everyone but the 30% Kool Aid Kretins knows that blame for the debacle must be laid at Dear Decider's feet, first and foremost.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

What a waste, we will have to wait for any real withdrawal till 2009. the form that the funding bill will take is no timetable, with vauge language about benchmarks with no real punishment if the iraq goverment fails to deliver needed changes. And it will be the President who will have the sole power to determine if these benchmarks are being met. In essense the Democracts will back down from this gane of chicken (which in my view the democracts easily have a super edge and could win easily win by just sending this newly vetoed bill over and over again, edwards idea is a brillant one) because the moment the democracts back down, they will lose much of my respect and maybe my vote (maybe I'll throw my vote away and go Green...)

Posted by: stillhere | May 2, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

'No facts please, we're Dems:

Godspeed and may the wind be always at your back.'

I'm afraid the 'wind' is coming from a slightly lower part of his body. hey JEP and Judge -- koz isn't here less, he's here everyday, 12 - 7, just like 'Jane' said. He just uses other names, like 'trotsky' but it's the same old obsessions and talking points, recycled and reiterated endlessly.

I still think he gets paid for it -- either that or he's on unemployement... he spends entire day here.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Most Americans think that if Western Europe dislikes us, that is a sign not that the United States or its current administration is wrongheaded, but that Western Europe is wrongheaded. In fact, even those ordinary Americans who think that the current administration is wrongheaded still believe that Western Europe is asinine for not liking us."

Only one word matters here...asinine, which describes this comment quite well, this person pretends to speak for ALL ORDINARY AMERICANS or even "Most Americans"... If "no facts" really believes they represent those things, they are delusional at best.

Kind of explains the tenor of the entire post, huh?

The power of sheer stupidity has always amazed me, if ignorance is bliss these Republican trolls must be very happy campers.

Try, just once in one of your posts, to simply speak for yourself, "no-facts."

No matter how great your delusions of personal grandeur, you surely do not represent ordinary American citizens. At best (or worst) you might represent a very small social circle of good-old-boys with blind loyalties to ridiculous, vile, and patently discredited talking heads Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Jane - do you see KOZ everywhere you look? do you try to silence anyone who disagrees with you? typical paranoid, elitist Liberal. your thoughts and policies are so weak they can stand up to no challenge.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Sorry I had to put you on front street trosky. I've heard a lot of harold ford supports fox lately. What a joke. Are you scared to be intellectually honest? Does it physically pain you?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I see koz is back with 'trotsky' and 'no facts please... his shift seems to start every day right after lunch. Now watch, he will be on here until 7pm, as he is everyday.

I still say we should ask CC to ban him... he's a nuisance troll.

Posted by: Jane | May 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

the Liberal mutual admiration society shall come to order. no dissension or we'll Lieberman you.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

no facts please, we're Dems:

Godspeed and may the wind be always at your back.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

JEP: good to have you back. I come and go depending on workload. We still obviously have lots of talking points posters who attempt to spread their Faux News-mediated divorce from reality around. KOZ seems to be here less; Razorback, Dave!, and JD are new guys/gals with more intellectual ability. Bhoomes is OTL, mostly.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Is that the same harold ford who is a fox news anaylst? Is that the same democrat that cashes checks from fox news Troskty? You might what to point that out. HE IS GETTING PAID. Just another republican posing as a democrat like liberman. Until he sellouts out to the right that is. Sellouts, tratiors to this country. They sold us out to line their pockets. Et's be real

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 2, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"The Politico blog homepage features Tom DeLay. What a disgusting piece of rightwing tripe that site is. What a load of winger propaganda pretending to be political 'analysis'"

Careful , our noble blog host is quite close to the Politico crew...

Just spell it "Politi-Co." for accuracy...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, DAVE!

If the shoe fits...........

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"No Facts, please" is whthe kind of person I meant when I just wrote,

"I see there's also a whole new crew of brainwashed Bushies aboard, this should be fun (again). I have to admit, it got a bit tiresome arguing the same stupid pre-election talking points, with the same ignorant ideologues.

At least now we have some new stupid talking points to shred.

(see "No Facts'" Post for an example of some of them)

It never ceases to amaze just how many new excuses these neocon wannabe's can come up with. But then, I haven't babysat with three-year olds for a while...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe they should go the way of the whigs"

The whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch! Careful, Dems your Whigs are showing!!

Last one out please turn off the lights

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

malis,
Let's see if i got this. Its May 2007. You are already preparing and making excuses for the next president who won't be in office until Jan 2009. That is what i call planning ahead.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Out of the Mainstream
By Quin Hillyer
Published 5/2/2007 12:08:11 AM


Memo to the self-proclaimed "mainstream media":

Point 1: You actually aren't in the American mainstream. The American mainstream is miles to the right of you politically, and in a different universe from you culturally.

Point 2: Religious faith is not a strange affliction; it's an essential component of (and an indicator of) a healthy outlook on life.

Point 3: The U.S. Constitution isn't an exposition of what ought to be law, but of what is law. It is not prescriptive, but descriptive. If you believe the Constitution ought to protect a "right," that doesn't mean that the Constitution does protect that "right." It just means that you have the opportunity in a free society to work through the political process to protect that right either by statute or, if and only if you formally amend the Constitution, via language in the Constitution itself.

Point 4: Ordinary Americans may not be sure whether or not the American effort in Iraq is already "lost," but they strongly want to believe that it is still winnable. Unlike you, they think that Americans really are the "good guys" over there, whether or not we "win." And unlike you, they do not think that we somehow earned or deserve the terrorists' ire.

Point 5: Most Americans think that if Western Europe dislikes us, that is a sign not that the United States or its current administration is wrongheaded, but that Western Europe is wrongheaded. In fact, even those ordinary Americans who think that the current administration is wrongheaded still believe that Western Europe is asinine for not liking us.

Point 6: President Bush did not "lie" to get us into war in Iraq. I challenge anybody to prove that he "lied." A lie is not merely a statement that turns out not to be accurate; it is a statement that the speaker himself knows is inaccurate. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that President Bush believed anything other than exactly what he told the American people in the months leading up to the war. And if you say that Bush "lied" without being able to show evidence that he intentionally misled us all...well, then, you, yourself, are a liar.

Point 7: There was no unanimity or even broad agreement between the American left and right on how to conduct the Cold War. The left furiously opposed all the policies that ended up winning the Cold War. And, contrary to revisionist history, the left never believed that the Soviet Union would collapse of its own weight anyway. Instead, the left consistently said that the Soviets were too strong ever to be defeated or to fall apart, and that therefore the only way to deal with them was to reach an accommodation with them, by convincing them that we could no longer be a threat to them, so as to make them stop being nasty to us. Strength, not accommodation, won the Cold War. And those lessons are applicable in the war against Islamic terrorists.

Point 8: By every traditional measurement, the U.S. economy is not just strong, but stunningly strong. And it has been strong since well before the 2004 election.

Point 9: Tax cuts, by definition, do not "give" money to the rich. The government doesn't own the money to "give" it out. The people who earn the money own the money. Government merely decides how much of it to take, to confiscate, for other purposes. Any money that the government does not take in taxes is not money the government has given; it is money the government has not taken.

Point 10: The economy began strengthening immediately after the 2003 tax cuts. Government revenues began growing strongly right after those tax cuts, just as conservatives predicted, and have continued to grow at record levels since. And taxes paid (as opposed to tax rates) grew more progressive, not less, after those tax cuts, just as they have done after almost every tax cut for the past 50 years.

Point 11: Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass murder. The question is not whether or not he had them -- they were documented numerous times in the 1990s -- but what happened to them. Did they just get degraded? Were they destroyed? Were they lost? Were they moved to Syria? Those are the questions to which nobody knows the answers. But it is an absolute, incontrovertible, documented fact that he had them.

Point 12: The Supreme Court did not "award" the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and its main decision was not made by a 5-4 split. A consortium of every major news outlet in the country conducted its own recount of the Florida ballots and found that under every legal approach advocated by the Gore campaign, Bush won. Moreover, the decision itself on the overall legal issue in Bush v. Gore was handed down by a 7-2 majority; it was merely the remedy that was decided by a 5-4 split. Absent that remedy, a) the counting under the standards proposed by Gore would have given Bush the win; b) the alternative constitutional means of letting Congress decide would have given Bush the win; c) the other alternative constitutional means would have left it to the Florida governor to determine which Florida slate of electors was the official one, which would have given Bush the win.

Point 13: The majority of the charges leveled by the Swift Boat vets against John Kerry were not disproved. In fact, most of them were never answered. At least a couple of them are incontrovertibly true.

Point 14: The 1988 campaign of the elder Bush did not run a TV ad with the photo of Willie Horton. (An independent effort did.) And it was not Republicans who first raised the issue, nor was it used as a proxy for race. It was reporters (non-conservative ones) for the Lawrence Eagle Tribune who broke the story, and it was Al Gore who first used it against Michael Dukakis.

Point 15: Most Google searches trying to find examples of respected conservatives calling liberals or Democrats "unpatriotic" or "un-American" would be fruitless. But examples of leading Democrats calling Republicans or conservatives "un-American" are multitudinous.

Point 16: President Bush and his official spokesmen have used language far less nasty toward their Democratic opponents than President Clinton and his official spokesmen (especially Mike McCurry) used toward their Republican opponents. In fact, it is virtually impossible to find President Bush himself ever using harsh language about the left, even though Harry Reid and company have used the most scathing language toward him. He promised to change the tone in Washington, and he, himself, has lived up to that pledge. (More's the pity. The blame-America-first crowd that runs the Washington Democratic Party deserves to be called on the carpet.)

Okay, that's plenty for now. The mainstream media lives in too much of a leftist echo chamber to ever hear any of this, anyhow.



Posted by: no facts please, we're Dems | May 2, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Rufus:
As for anyone wondering about my gender,
http://jep-betweenthelines.blogspot.com/

And thanks for not making assumptions, I describe myself as a "recovering dominant male." And a big "hey" to Drindl, Mike B, Judge and the regular crew here, it has been a while..

I see there's also a whole new crew of brainwashed Bushies aboard, this should be fun (again). I have to admit, it got a bit tiresome arguing the same stupid pre-election talking points, with the same ignorant ideologues.

At least now we have some new stupid talking points to shred.

It never ceases to amaze just how many new excuses these neocon wannabe's can come up with. But then, I haven't babysat with three-year olds for a while...

Considering I'll be a grampa again soon, maybe I can practice-up by arguing with some of the Bushbrained intellectual infants here on the WaPo blog again.

Like this one...
"The world breaths a sigh of relief that the awful situation will continue in a stable fashion, protecting world economies against a great failure."

Checked on the exchange rate lately? Or have you tried to sell a house lately? Bush has been a disaster for the American economy.

Wall Street really likes Democrats, the stockmarket has been flying higher and higher since the Dems took back Congress. The Wall Street Journal Republicans won't talk about it, but the fact is, Democrats are much better for the economy than Republicans, and the proof of it is shown every day in the stockmarket.

But with Murdoch trying to buy up the WSJ and The Dow Jones, (no joke, it is for real) we can only imagine how they will spin the fact that the economy always grows under Democrats, but gets sequestered into fewer and fewer big-money accounts (stifling the growth of the economy as a whole) when the Republicans are in control.

Nothing culd be better for the R's than an "awful situation continuing in a stable fashion".

Still laughing about that self-negating sentence...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Broder won a rebuke not only from the senators but from the New York Times's Frank Rich, who ridiculed Mr. Broder in his column Sunday and who defended as "obvious" Mr. Reid's assessment that the war is lost. The episode illuminates how thin-skinned and intolerant the left is in this country of a press corps that is anything less than completely pliant. It began with the Democratic presidential candidates refusing to participate in a presidential debate that would be aired on the Fox News Channel, a network so reflexively right-wing that its regular paid contributors include Michael Dukakis's campaign manager Susan Estrich, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, and the 2006 Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr. First they came for Fox News Channel, then they came for David Broder.

http://www.nysun.com/article/53616

Posted by: Trotsky | May 2, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The Politico blog homepage features Tom DeLay. What a disgusting piece of rightwing tripe that site is. What a load of winger propaganda pretending to be political 'analysis'.

Posted by: Sal | May 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

For all of you throwing around the "T" word, here is the constitutional definition of treason. Please be accurate when you use it no matter what side you are on.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

It's fairly obvious the Current Occupant is just running out the string, hanging on until the Next Occupant has to take over the mess.

Were he thoughtful and honorable, he'd simply resign now (acknowledging he's never had the talent or intellect for the job) and let the person who's been making the decisions assume the actual title, too. Of course, were any of the decision makers thoughtful and honorable, we wouldn't be here now.

Current activities add up to a Kabuki Dance...actions pre-ordained and outcome not really having any impact. The act of passing the resolution with some Republican support was in itself a meaningful achievement but has impact only as a message (like a high, inside fastball).

Bush doesn't need the funding resolution to last out his term--he can use accounting gimmickry to fund his approach, then, having drained all the accounts (and broken the Military in the process), just hand over the whole mess to the new (presumedly Democratic) President on his way out the door (with a last wail of "...it wudda worked but you wouldn't give me the money!).

Oh well...just count the days until January 2009, and hope we get adult leadership (of whatever party--maybe Bloomberg/Unity08!) and see how long it takes to clen everything up.

Posted by: malis | May 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

tHIS POLL IS FROM THE RIGHT-WLEANING drudgereport.com freind politico.com. If the right thinks this is bad, what does the middle and left think? The repubs are done for 10 years. Maybe they should go the way of the whigs

"Subject:

Mission Unclear
Question:

Do you support Bush's decision to veto the Iraq war funding bill?
Answers:

Yes
(37 %)

No
(63 %)"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

his has to be one of the more brutal primary attack ads that we've ever seen -- in it, a GOP candidate literally creates and airs an attack ad for the Democrats to use against her fellow Republican in a general election. The idea behind the ad -- which is being aired by former Congresswoman Anne Northup (R-KY), who narrowly lost her seat last fall and is now challenging scandal-plagued GOP governor Ernie Fletcher in the gubernatorial primary -- is to persuade GOP primary voters that Dems would rather run against the incumbent than against herself.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/02/in_kentucky_airs_brual_attack_ad_against_fellow_republican

Posted by: HILARIOUS! | May 2, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Online poll today--'was bush right or wrong to veto the Iraq Accountability Act?

right 24%
wrong 76%

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris, have you parsed the polls enough to realize that every poll lately has most any issue supported by Bush at only 33 percent? It shows that time and time again, Bush is supported by his base (aka the 33 percenters) and nobody else. That means almost every voter on the left and every voter in the middle does not support this president, his positions, or his political party. This is going to be a recipe for disaster for the GOP, and will ultimately cripple that party for at least a generation.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 2, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Bush won this skirmish merely by sake of his veto? GMAFB, Cilliza. With that veto, Bush has deepened his unpopularity with the American people, and he has created a whole new endgame for the Iraq war that is going to involve the president being treated hostilely. That veto shifted the dynamic into being even more anti-Bush, and was hardly a victory for Bush. It was the beginning of the end of the Iraq war.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I totally support the Edwards approach. It exposes Bush's powerlessness in this situation. If the Congress keeps sending Bush the same bill, there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This president must be forced to do the will of the people, and it is going to take the Democrats in Congress to do so. Bush has ZERO political capital right now, and he just pissed off two-thirds of the electorate.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 2, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

more rw hypocrasy points out
"I can't wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials"

I actually like this flip-flop. 1) its a prudent change of course in our regional policy there and B) it shuts up the RW nuts.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse


Forget benchmarks, timelines, etc. and just give the brat exactly what he wants, EXCEPT, for a provision that prohibits American-owned oil companies (and their foreign subsidiaries/affliates) from exploiting or profiting from any phase of Iraqi oil reserves after the bill is signed. That's what this whole invasion/occupation is about...did everyone forget?

Posted by: godspeed, asteroid itokawa | May 2, 2007 11:12 AM

GREAT IDEA godspeed!!!

The brunt and cost of this 'war' has fallen on a few hundred thousand soldiers and their families - its time to get behind this fight for freedom and the democratic way - reinstate the draft -- not the 5 deferment/champagne unit of the Nat. Guard kind of draft but a real one - no exemptions, no deferments...... in particular I'd like it to start with BYU and Regent Univ (aka. the 700club School of Law).
I know the military doesn't want these patriotic stalwarts, but why should we listen to them now - Bush can always find another General or two who will agree with him.

Posted by: sharon | May 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I hear you the republican party is freaking deranged. I personally don't think they are crazy ,per se. I think there is a real disconnect between what they feel/think and what they say. I think they have goals they want accomplished. I think thye would do or say anyting to accomplish these goals. I think now their hypocricy is finally getting revealed, with the internet cable shows (olberman).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

How many more American soldiers have to die for Bush's ego? He only wants to keep them in Iraq long enough that he'll be out of office and won't have to embarassed by an American retreat under his watch.

It's shameful. Men and women are losing their lives and limbs for politics and ego.

Posted by: John | May 2, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

we are free to have our own considered opinion here in this country. 'home of the free'. it is our RIGHT as an American. calling for someone with another opinion to be tried for treason is in fact a vestage of the Puritan days - witch hunts and burnings and all that - religeous persectuion. we fought a revolution to get out from under that. perhaps we ought to examine if our bill of rights is being threatened by anything besides a differing opinion. opinions can't force me to change mine. calling me names won't induce me to rethink my position. if we look elsewhere for ACTUAL threats, perhaps we will see that our personal rights are indeed being threatened. at the moment, that threat seems to be coming from the current administration. i remain free to not be a christian, or muslim, or hindu, or anything else i don't want to be. you will not change that by being abusive or demanding. if you feel threatened, don't just pick the easy target, pick the real target - the threat that currently exists. you do want to keep your rights, don't you..?

Posted by: minneapolis | May 2, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

To fully appreciate the ideology of large parts of the Republican Party, one needs to look past Capitol Hill and consider what state GOP officials are up to. Take Utah, for example.

Several top Republican officials in Utah -- including the lieutenant governor, the state attorney general, and U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon -- gathered yesterday for an annual GOP county convention where attendees debated a resolution on immigration.

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan's minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because "they are not going to become Republicans...."

You're just all insane and/or feeble-minded, that's the problem.

Posted by: the republican party is freaking deranged | May 2, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials:

'A senior Iraqi official and a senior Arab diplomat say Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem in Egypt on Thursday or Friday.

It would be Rice's first meeting with a Syrian foreign minister since she took over at the State Department in 2005, adding potentially significant bilateral talks to a regional session meant to help stabilize Iraq.

A meeting between Rice and Moualem would mark a shift for the Bush administration. After failing to win his way with the Syrian government during his first administration, U.S. President George W. Bush decided that dialogue with Damascus was futile. The administration rejected the recommendation of a high-level panel on Iraq policy that called for direct talks between the U.S. and Syria and Iran, and sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) when she visited Damascus last month.'

Ah yes, the Pelosi meeting. As I recall, when the Speaker of the House chatted with Syrian officials last month, the White House, congressional Republicans, and far-right activists were apoplectic. CNN ran a news segment on Pelosi's trip titled "Talking to Terrorists." [The famously 'liberal' CNN] LOL

The ringleader of this spectacularly stupid smear was the Bush White House. Somehow I suspect Rove & Co. will be a little quieter now.

Literally just one month ago, the Bush administration said U.S. officials should not have contact with the Syrian government, accusing the Syrians of meddling in Lebanon, supporting terrorism, and being unhelpful on Iraq. White House spokesperson Dana Perino said it sends the wrong "message" for members of Congress to discuss anything with Syrian officials.

Posted by: more winger hypocrisy | May 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris & Roneida -

You each are obviously part of that hard core 20%-30% of the American public who reflexively view the rantings of every jihadi weirdo who crawls out of every cave as an immediate existential threat to the physical security of the United States and/or Israel, and who cling to a fervent belief that using high tech US military force to "kill them all over there" is an historically justified, clever strategy that will somehow "keep us safer over here."

I am a part of that hard core 20%-30% of the American public who don't view every isolated nut case as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler (even rich nut cases like Osama). I see stationing thousands of American troops in the heart of the Middle East in response to 9/11 as racist, reckless neo-colonial folly, a policy destined to bankrupt our nation morally and financially while it multiplies our genuine enemies a thousand fold.

The reason George Bush went from 70% approval ratings to 30% approval ratings is because that vast independent, swing voting segment of the public in the middle finally woke up and smelled the coffee despite the lies and disinformation routinely spewing forth from the White House on cable TV and AM talk radio.

Attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein as a reaction to the mass murders perpetrated by al Quaeda would be like invading Mexico as a response to Pearl Harbor. Given the choice, fellows like Mohammed Atta will still opt to get a passport and fake ID and plane tickets and do their suicide operations against civilian targets on US soil rather than grabbing an AK-47 and marching off to pick a firefight against the Marines Corps in Anbar province.

Criminals are not soldiers, and master criminals who inspire coconspirators to kill innocent people do not magically become generals.

There is no military solution to the centuries-old threat of international terrorism. Continuing to pretend otherwise makes everything a whole lot worse, including the risk from the suitcase nukes.

Bill from Saginaw

Posted by: william t street | May 2, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Reverse the game. Look at things through your "Enemies" eyes. If your country was iraq waht would you do? If you had Humvee's raming your cars what would you do? What would you do if tanks were rolling down mainstreet usa? I know I would try and get them outta here? Would you stay in your house and let Canada/france/austraila anybody else, make your laws for you. Tell you what to do with your country? If you would not allow that in youur country it stands to reaon the iraqi's would not allow outside interferance in theris. No disrespect. Bad policy by bush. The iraqis should be in 100% control of their destiny

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The shadow war in Iraq

there is another disturbing fact that most Americans know next to nothing about... the estimated 126,000 private military "contractors" who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active-duty US forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel who currently come from such companies as Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration. Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing US troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future "surge" in Iraq.

From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the US occupation of Iraq. While many of them perform logistical support activities for US troops, including the sort of laundry, fuel and mail delivery, and food-preparation work that once was performed more efficiently and cheaply by soldiers, tens of thousands of them are directly engaged in military and combat activities.

According to the Government Accountability Office, there are now some 48,000 employees of private military companies in Iraq. These not-quite GI Joes working for Blackwater and other major US firms can clear in a month what some active-duty soldiers make in a year. "We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense," said the chairman of the House of Representatives' Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "How in the hell do you justify that?"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

'if only we'd leave their Holy lands" will not stop our sworn enemies from wanting to kill us or our allies.'

Actually, YES, it might just stop them.

While you can disagree, you certainly can't speak with any authority, as if just stating it makes it real. Your argument reeks of talking points, invented to cover the truth rather than expose it.

If we left their resources and holy lands alone, we might actually see some serious Peace in the Middle East, and reconciliation among many nations, which benefits all of them, including Israel..

But as long as our oil-grubbing neocons demand a guaranteed piece of the action, it is very unlikely we will get the chance to prove it. Because they will constantly stir the ire of the locals as they intrude from afar, supported by a half-trained and illequipped army that is, ironically, supposed to represent freedom.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Who's asking themselves why the Republicans lost the house and senate in the last elections?Must not be Bush!He continues on a path of my way,my way,my way.Problem is he has'nt made a correct decision since he began.Just how long do the Die-hard Bush fans think we should stay in Iraq?When do they think it will end?They hav'nt a clue,they just can't let go and admit George is a failure.Iraq is most definatly a civil war any way you look at it.
Let me put something into terms anyone can understand:Iraq being in the middle east in the center of other muslim countries will never be free of its surrounding waring countries.Let us say,Russia attacked Kansas,how long do you suppose they would have to stay before we quit fighting them?And if they ever left,do you suppose we would let it stay the way they left it?NO!!
If we want Iraq to stay the way we want it,We have to stay forever.In Korea we still walk the 38th parallel,we still have bases in Germany,Guam,and Japan etc. from WWII,We still have Quantanamo in Cuba.
Wake up,we can NOT change the face of the Middle East,they have been fighting each other since long before this country was even thought of.We have the greatest country on the planet,but right now we have the worst leadership in our history.Our military is the best in the world and they have done everything ask of them and more,God Bless each and everyone of them.But the civil strife in Iraq is no longer our war,our troops are soldiers not policemen.Anyone know where Osama Bin Laden is?Hmm,was'nt he our main goal?

Posted by: Bill | May 2, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

No freedom of speech for the troops-

New Army Rules Could Kill G.I. Blogs
The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.... The new rules require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

That's funding REPUBLICAN CONTRACTORS JEP. Don't forget that. Don you know any contracters amking millions. The only ones I know or see are republicans. Who else would go. This money is blood money. The elite republicans are making money at home. The non-elite republicans are making money in Iraq as contractors. Just as in his government, Bush only looks out for Bushies or republicans. The right has forgot that this country is MORE than them. Screw the conservative movement. I can say that because they said" Screw america." They are done. The conservative movement is done for ten years. Fox "news' is done/ Rush/coulter hannity/o'reilly are done.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 2, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Washington - Thousands more mid-level enlisted soldiers are leaving the Army than in each of the past two years, forcing the service to increase its use of pay-to-stay programs and find other ways to keep GIs in the fold.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Dems are seen by world and US population as responsible for 'cowardly abandonment of yet another US-created mess'

Is this Rove's talking point for the week?

Didn't you mean "BUSH" created mess?

The only cowardly abandonment here is BushCo's abandonment of reality.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Chris; wishful thinking and liberal hogwash about "if only we'd leave their Holy lands" will not stop our sworn enemies from wanting to kill us or our allies.

Our national interests demand that we remain on the offensive, or hand over a victory to Al-Qaeda and make Bin Laden into a prophet when he said " I am sure of our victory, with God's help, against America and the Jews."

Consider the history of their jihad.
"In the 1,300 odd years of Islam's existence, there have been peaceful interpreters and practitioners of Islam and war-like ones.

Whether the war-like interpreters of Islam "hijacked" a peaceful religion or not, their presence has been a near constant menace for well over a millennium.

In other words, popular and
respected clerics such as Yussuf al-Qaradawi (who has vowed that Islam will conquer Europe and America) and war-mongering leaders such as Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are not historic anomalies.

Instead, they are links in a chain of Islamic leaders who have practiced jihad passionately for almost 14 centuries."

All Jihad All the Time
What Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" tells us about the history of Islam.
by Dean Barnett

Posted by: proutobeGOP | May 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- A Halliburton Co. executive Monday defended the legality of the oil-field-services giant's business dealings in Iran.

Halliburton has done business for years with Iran through a Cayman Islands-registered subcompany called Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, where the main office of the company is now moving.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"You were the only one who said ANYTHING about Iraq."

---------------
Well it is all about Iraq, Mr.brian cells !!!

Posted by: N.A | May 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

'When the right wing nuts here post that funding Bush's insane policy there is "supporting the troops", it is outright and utter hogwash."

Just what does "supporting the troops" really mean?

All Bush is doing now is supporting the war profiteers. Doesn't anyone else think that, if we are going to give Bush another $100+ billion, shouldn't he be able to account for the large percentage of the $500 billion already wasted?

Shouldn't Congress demand contractor accountability, if Bush demands it all go his way (or the highway)?

There is only one way to support the troops now, and that is to bring them home. All else is spin and subterfuge and enabling war profiteers.

It's much too late for so many of them to ask for the body armor and HumVee armor, and proper training and intelligent logistical support, all those things that REALLY represents "supporting the troops", and not lengthening their tours in desperation, and lying to them at sign-up time.

Key line in MikeB's typically insightful post?

"Bush's insane policy" says it all...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Dems produce real and meaningful strategy for a positive outcome in Iraq. Obviously, this cannot include a failure-driven plan for what many would call 'surrender.' The creation of a relatively stable, productive Iraq is the only tenable solution. No matter how great the cost. This will require a departure from the short-sighted political games that US politicians invariably play."

Now exactly which millinium was this suppose to occur in?

Posted by: Snowball in Hell | May 2, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse


WASHINGTON -- U.S. diplomats are returning from Iraq with the same debilitating, stress-related symptoms that have afflicted many U.S. troops, prompting the State Department to order a mental health survey of 1,400 employees who have completed assignments there.

State Department employees in Iraq seldom leave the capital's heavily fortified Green Zone. Even there, rocket and mortar attacks are frequent, and the sound of gunfire is constant. Suicide bombers have penetrated the zone on rare occasions, most recently on April 12.

Brown said the State Department is considering forming support groups "for alumni of high-stress or unaccompanied posts" -- jobs in countries where the threat is so high or schools and medical facilities so poor that diplomats cannot bring family members.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

jep IS ON POINT. He/she really hit the ground running. Good posts. Keep bringing truth to the blind. You only need to save one of them a day. :)

Bring our troops home. The "war on terror" is a war against the american people to steal our rights. It was to line the pockets of the few. I n the old days that was called treson. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 2, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

'Clearly, that's not the case, WTC and Pentagon attacks being the proof.'

The proof of WHAT, JD? The day after 9/11, Bush pulled all the US troops out of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 attackers were from. Think there was a causal relationship?

bin Ladin stated in his tape that the attack was in response to American troops in Mecca, a holy city. Now do you get it?

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

all the right wingnut repubics are getting that tingly feeling between their legs (brains) reading the Washington Post's story on Reagan's memoirs! Everyone: do the Homer Simpson drool for them...

Posted by: keybrokeoffonspamcan | May 2, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Careful, my Fox News training is leaking out. Rather than address substantive points I'm going to try to tear down the whole by focusing on the trivial.

Posted by: ashamedtobeGOP | May 2, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Ted Koppel on NPR ATC said it best. The democrats are proving why they are not fit to run the US.

Scenario 1: Withdrawal bill becomes law and Dems successfully force a US pull-out of Iraq before 2008 election. While intensely proud of themselves, Dems are seen by world and US population as responsible for 'cowardly abandonment of yet another US-created mess' and for the subsequent conflagration that makes SE Asia pale in comparison. Oil prices skyrocket, shortages ensue, US and world economies founder and, although the D's win the election, they lose the moral high ground in subsequent elections as they are, once again, seen to be short-sighted and opinion poll-driven, never strategic. Once again, they are relegated to untouchable status in US politics. The world's distrust of joining the US in any military venture is heightened, once again -- in future conflicts, the US will find itself even less likely to forge a coalition than now.

Scenario 2: Troops stay in Iraq until power shift in DC post 2008 election. Democrat President pulls troops. See scenario 1.

Scenario 3: Democrat president gets elected with troops still in Iraq, sees the error of the Reid/Pelosi silliness and the true costs of failure. Chooses the lesser of two great evils and becomes Bush-like... trapped in Iraq. The world breaths a sigh of relief that the awful situation will continue in a stable fashion, protecting world economies against a great failure.

Scenario 3: Dems produce real and meaningful strategy for a positive outcome in Iraq. Obviously, this cannot include a failure-driven plan for what many would call 'surrender.' The creation of a relatively stable, productive Iraq is the only tenable solution. No matter how great the cost. This will require a departure from the short-sighted political games that US politicians invariably play.

There is only one way for the world to win with the Democrats and that requires a path that party doesn't seem to want to follow.

Posted by: World Citizen | May 2, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Remember how the price of oil has tripled sinced 2000?

The way the PNACkers think has a surface allure, but it is actually corrupt nonsense, based on only the dimmest sort of ideas of how the world works. The goal of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was to remake American armed forces with the specific purpose of controlling peoples and resources all around the world in order to enforce American notions of what various countries and peoples should be doing in their own countries -- hundreds of thousands of American soldiers were going to be enforcers of PNAC ideas about "democracy" and "the free market." What if these people didn't want American forces in their countries? Well, the implication was, they would get them anyway. Why fighting men and women, and not, say, trade representatives and diplomats? Well, soldiers are a threat, and if citizens of other countries acted in opposition to American interests, they could easily be punished. This plan presupposes that in any country and in any conflict, Americans would know what their interests are, but history shows, of course, that THIS IS NOT THE CASE! Iraq is our number one example. By any measure -- money, reputation, good-will, humanity -- the PNACkers have shown unequivocally that they do not even begin to know what American interests are.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

JEP, the poster did not say that the World Trade Center had anything to do with Iraq, at least directly.

It was a response to some other poster saying that all the Muslim fundamentalists want is us out of their country. That the war would never come here if we were out of the midEast, that we would never be attacked in the future.

Clearly, that's not the case, WTC and Pentagon attacks being the proof.

Note that nobody is saying that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. But your response was way off base.

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"You were the only one who said ANYTHING about Iraq."

Duh!!!

Read the headline of this thread...

Sometimes, it doesn't take many of brain cells to argue with the commenters here...

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Comparison between Bush and Saddam:
Bush sent soldiers to fight enemies of USA.Iraqis !!!!!!
Saddam sent soldiers to fight enemies of Iraq, Shiite and Kurdish terrorist.
Bush wanted to get ride from Saddam by killing thousands of people and to destroy the WMD...heehaw.
Saddam wanted to get ride from people who tried to assassinate him buy killing 5000 Kurdish and 148 Shiite.
Bush, by taking war decisions by himself, is acting like a dictator.
Saddam was a dictator too.
Bush committed crime of wars though he didn't do it himself with his own hand.
Saddam did the same.

I believe they should both, though Saddam was executed, have been judged by the United nation as war criminals for killing incent people, indirectly, using their political power.
Before invasion, no al Qaeda roll in Iraq, after invasion, holy molly..Heehaw.
What is going on?

Funny.

Posted by: N.A | May 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"You were the only one who said ANYTHING about Iraq."

Duh!!!

Read the headline of this thread...

Sometimes, it doesn't take many of brain cells to argue with the commenters here...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

'These are the enemies we face people- they will come and try to kill us if we do not stand firm!' OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you just see this guy holding his face in his hands, eyes bugged out, running in little circles, pooping himself as he watches Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter feed him his daily dose of fear?

Posted by: agrarian | May 2, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Here's how the sequence of events went: In 2000, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and others decided that the US was the boss of the world, and was to be the boss of the world for at least a hundred years. Cheney made himself vice president and grafted his ambitions onto whatever Bush thought he was doing. Already in "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the PNACkers were planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but then after the Republicans cheated and bullied their way into the presidency (thank you, Jeb Bush), they disdained everything Clinton had learned about Al Qaeda and the Middle East and a potential terrorist attack on American soil. When that attack occurred, they instantly annexed it to their agenda, and used it as an excuse to begin a civil war in Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and take control of the oil (not, as Greg Palast says, to turn the spigot on but to turn it off, and raise prices and profits). Having begun the Iraq civil war, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries to Iraqis and Americans, not to mention the internal displacement of millions, the PNACkers have no interest in ending it (and don't know how, anyway).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

'These are the enemies we face people- they will come and try to kill us if we do not stand firm!' OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you just see this guy holding his face in his hands, eyes bugged out, running in little circles, pooping himself as he watches Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter feed him his daily dose of fear?

Posted by: aggagagga | May 2, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Judge -"Your spin on a mundane fact backs up the anonymous woman above who characterized your viewpoint as "...the Republican mindset of DC -- your cocktail party bubble."

Why do you assume the poster is a woman? Careful, your sexist viewpoint is leaking out.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 2, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"expecting a group of insurgence with white flags and hands raised above their head walking in a single file?"

SPOT ON.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bush is so ego-motivated by the thought ANYONE culd even think they "BEAT" him, he's willing to see a thousand more casualties, rather than let the terrorists delude themselves that they have won some sort of "Victory."

Withdrawal is victory, staying the course equals defeat. Simple as that. Who cares what "they" think, bringing our troops home is US winning.

But Bush doesn't just want to "win", he wants to believe he DOMINATED, and it is way too late for that. Now he and Cheney and the AIPACers and neocons are all so worried about some mysterious Islamist enemy claiming victory if we leave, and their war goes on unchecked and uncontrolled.

All they control is the spin, but never the reality. Unfortunately, it is obvious reading some of these brainwashed commenters, there's "some of the people all of the time" who buy the spin, in spite of the reality they see every day.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

C'mon JEP, slap that other brain cell and gettem both firing! The statement was: "The truth is, the Islamic fundamentalists really don't want to come here to "hurt us", they really just want us out of their holy lands."

The reply was: "Tell that to the folks in the World Trade Center."

You were the only one who said ANYTHING about Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

As the father of two sons, serving as front line troops in Iraq, I think my opinion ought to count for something. When the right wing nuts here post that funding Bush's insane policy there is "supporting the troops", it is outright and utter hogwash. We parents of children in Iraq tend to communicate and socialize with each other and I can tell you that not one, NOT ONE of us supports giving Bush one dime to continue this fiasco. We want our children home and are horrified that Bush and the right have stooped to using them as human hostages. Human hostages, no different than Sudanese thugs using women and children a few years back to kill our Army Rangers! That is precisely what the despicable actions of Bush and his supporters amount to. It is so immoral, so horrifying, so god-awful, that he needs to be impeached for it and the right wing trash that suggests it need to be called on it and condemned for it. And the Democrats need to elicit loudly and publicly that this is the new policy of the Bush White House, to use our troops, our children, as human hostages to leverage funds for their failed foreign adventure in Iraq. Bush's veto was no "victory". It was an act of desperation. An act of callous disregard for the wishes of the American people and for the safety of our troops.

Posted by: MikeB | May 2, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

McALLEN, Texas -- A new map showing President Bush's planned border fence has riled Rio Grande Valley officials, who say the proposed barrier reneges on assurances that the river would remain accessible to farmers, wildlife and recreation.
City officials in the heavily populated valley had anticipated a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras and border patrols.

Instead, a Customs and Border Protection map depicts a structure running piecemeal along a 600-mile stretch of Texas from Presidio to Brownsville, a border region where daily life is binational.

"We were given the impression that they were not going to be building walls, that there would be more cameras, surveillance, boots on the ground," said Mike Allen, head of McAllen Economic Development Corp.

"This is going to seriously affect the farmers," he said. "They will not have access to water. It's just going to create bedlam."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I love reading people write how reckless Reid and Pelosi are after 5 years of the most reckless, bronco-busting bunch of scared white boys brought us to the brink of a civil war in the USA. Bring it on, neo-cons...I know it's what you want: a return to pre-civil war days with slaves and plantations.

Posted by: gagme | May 2, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

'Bringing Hope to the Hopeless' YOU ARE THE HOPELESS.

Catherine -- you poor, dimwitted child. I pity you that you have to wander through life with such a feeble mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"Tell that to the folks in the World Trade Center."

Most of them probably knew the simple truth about Bush's itch for war...

As usual, the neocon apologists profane these dead Americans by using their deaths to prop up their pernicious war-addiction.

WHAT DOES 9-11 HAVE TO DO WITH IRAQ?

yOU'VE BEEN WATCHING TOO MUCH fOX nEWS.

Just one more argument out of context, from brainwashed Bush lovers who would blindly and willingly send their own precious children to war before they would consider doing what is right.

And they would send my children to war before their own.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Bring our boys home, rest and train them. While doing so, fix our equipment. Redeploy rested and repaired troops and equipment to Afhganistan to finish the job we started there.

While finishing the job in Afghanistan let Iraqis sort out their sectarian problems. They'll probably kill a few Al-Quaeda in the process.

When Afghanistan is secure (along with a modern infrastructure -- American made!) we go back and "Afghan" the terrorist who have amassed in Iraq in preparation for "coming here". Then we work with the Iraqi sects to rebuild the shambles -- infrastructure, American made! Shambles started by Sadam and finished by the bad decisions of our leaders.

If the sects then want to turn America's effort back into the shambles of today, so be it. We will have at least partially made right to the world on our gross mistake of the millenium.

If we're going to have a war, let's put some structure to its execution so we can win.

Posted by: James in MD | May 2, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

People, take time to define what victory in Iraq is. Are you expecting a group of insurgence with white flags and hands raised above their head walking in a single file? - RIGHT!. Take note, no other country can intervene in a civil war and bring it to a holt. Which country intervened during the American civil war or any other civil war you have heard about. Our brave men and women in uniform did what Bush send them to do, bomb Iraq, so that there would be chaos and get stuck there until they get killed for no apparent reason. How many are now wishing they hadn't killed Saddam, maybe he would give them ideas on how to control those savages in Iraq.

Posted by: James | May 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, 49 percent of Republican voters want a candidates with a different approach on Iraq than President Bush II and 40 percent of conservative GOP voters want different approach than President Bush II on Iraq.

Who are these Republicans voters going to turn other than Ron Paul, the only antiwar Republican in the race?

The math adds up to me

Posted by: Sean Scallon | May 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

we should stay the course. Please stop being such an Ass...do you like to be free and strong? You can't have both with out the other!! YOu so called Liberals< I feek, Are not really Americans.. You want to do what you FEEL...not what you think is best for AMERICA!!! THE LAND OF THE FREE.

Posted by: catherine | May 2, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

No Compromise? Why should that be an issue at all? This is supposedly a democracy and the majority of citizens have already let their voices be heard. The war was a colossal mistake and it is time to get out. Now follow the will of the people or quit pretending that what we have here is a democracy!

Posted by: Arjuna | May 2, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Forget the polls... Bush gave the Dems the perfect out. Last night he said QUOTE: In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad, and, as General Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus's plan a chance to work. ENDQUOTE

So, the answer is obvious: Pass a spending measure that funds the war through the end of summer (September -- also happens to be the end of the federal FY). Then, if things are working, adjust accordingly in passing future spending measures. If they're not, pass a spending measure to force a troop withdrawal.

Posted by: Left of the Pyle | May 2, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I had an idea. Perhaps congress should give the white house a blank check, but only until september. Perhaps when reauthorization takes place this summer, more republicans would be inclided to join the majority, as they watch conditions further deteriorate.

Posted by: Brad | May 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"Pffttt. And a blog really means something?"

Which century are you from, Pat?

"A blog" alone might not topple the powerful (although some of them have) but "The Blogs" certainly can.

Just ask Delay or Foley or Gonzales or ANY of them, they may use some choice swear words describing "the blogs," but they all know how their own political demise transpired, at the hands of honest bloggers across the land.

"The Blogs" have ingerited the 4th Estate from panderers like Fred Hiatt, although if not for people like Ailes and Hiatt, "the blogs" would have never been necessary.

But their abdication of the 4th Estate throne demanded the new formulation, we are a nation of pamphleteers.

It was inevitable, when the MSM dropped the "Truth" ball in favor of the neocon agenda and it's minion's millions, that "The Blogs" would pick it up and run with it.

Ya snooze, ya loose!

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

He wanted to get ride from Saddam first of all because Saddam post his Dad picture in the ground so every body steps on it, this is the main reason of the war, I would revenge for my dad too if I have such a power.
Then Bush felt guilty so he said I will help the iraqis and there I will try to improve USA ecconomy.
So if you guys feel that he is a dectator, I mean Bush, then why don't you hang him?
Funny

Posted by: N.A | May 2, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"The truth is, the Islamic fundamentalists really don't want to come here to "hurt us", they really just want us out of their holy lands."

Tell that to the folks in the World Trade Center.

What World Trade Center?

Oh, that's right: THEY BLEW IT UP!!

Posted by: Bringing Hope to the Hopeless | May 2, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Forget benchmarks, timelines, etc. and just give the brat exactly what he wants, EXCEPT, for a provision that prohibits American-owned oil companies (and their foreign subsidiaries/affliates) from exploiting or profiting from any phase of Iraqi oil reserves after the bill is signed. That's what this whole invasion/occupation is about...did everyone forget?

Posted by: godspeed, asteroid itokawa | May 2, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, the State Department released its annual terrorism report, showing that the number of terrorist attacks worldwide rose by 20,000 (40 percent) last year. Iraq accounted for nearly two-thirds of last year's terrorism-related deaths. The number of terrorism "incidents in Iraq rose 91 percent, from 3,468 in 2005 to 6,630 in 2006."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"IF IT CANNOT BE CONTAINED AND WON AT ITS CURRENT LOCATIONS THEN IT WILL SPILL OVER AND BE WON OR LOST HERE AT HOME."

say it often enough and LOUD enough, you may be able to continue to fool yourselves, but you won't change any one else's mind, it is way too late for that. Believe this tripe if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to forget all the lies and suddenly accept your failed policies.

The truth is, the Islamic fundamentalists really don't want to come here to "hurt us", they really just want us out of their holy lands.

If we recognized this simple fact, and were had the will to forego all that Big Oil Money that is waiting beneath the desert sand, the Ismalists would not be interested in things like 9-11.

No matter how you Bushies spin it, it is OUR continual violation of THEIR rights that created a cultural vendetta that led to 9-11... that tragedy was not the beginning of anything, it was one in a long line of attacks and retribution spawned by US and Western European oil emperialism.

THEY DON'T WANT US IN THEIR HOMELAND!!!

IS THAT TOO HARD FOR YOU STUPID REDNECKS TO UNDERSTAND?

I know it is hopeless to imagine I can make any sense to these wannabe neocons, simply by stating the obvious and most basic truth about this whole Iraqi/Islamic debacle, but here goes...

WE ARE THE INVADER/OCCUPIERS, NOT THEM!!!

How would you feel if Prince Bandar showed up one day in Oklahoma and started drilling for oil on your mini-ranch with equipment labeled "Saudi Arabian Oil Company?" And when you went out with your scattergun to chase them off, they pulled out a GUN BIGGER THAN YOURS, and then told you Inhoffe gave them permission to drill on your property?? Then they shoot your grampa and rape your daughter because they talk back???

How do you think the people in the Middle East feel about our profiteering at their mortal expense? Wouldn't you feel the same way, under the same circumstances??

However, knowing the mindset of these doofuses posting here and slapping each other on the back, I would suspect they would go out and vote for Inhoffe again...

HYPOCRITES!!!

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Jon, I hope you're not defending pork projects, in any bill... I can't tell you how much I hate earmarks, bridge to nowhere, spinach subsidies, etc... Talk about welfare! And both sides do it, make no mistake - although there are a couple of Repubs talking about banning earmarks, too bad their leadership won't let them go to the mat on it.

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

***BE SURE TO ATTEND THIS, CC. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING..

Failure of Conservatism Conference

Space is still available for the luncheon debate between Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, and William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading conservative spokesman. The lunch is from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Location:

National Press Club, 13th Floor
529 14th Street NW
Washington, DC 20045

202-662-7500

The failures of the Bush administration -- from Katrina to Iraq -- are more than a matter of incompetence and cronyism. They are a matter of ideology. The administration's abysmal performance is rooted in the set of conservative beliefs that are at the heart of its decision-making. Conservatism has failed, and will continue to fail, because it has a wrong view of how the world works.

Posted by: INVITE | May 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.

The "Office of the Commander in Chief" has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.

Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.

The Office, as it is known in Baghdad, was set up about four months ago with the knowledge of American forces in Iraq. Its goal is ostensibly to advise Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki -- the nation's new commander in chief -- on military matters.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Here's the new Americans United for Change TV ad, which will start airing on national cable networks immediately upon President Bush's veto of the Iraq withdrawal bill: "Mr. President, you can veto a bill. But you can't veto the truth."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/01/new_anti_bush_ad_you_cant_veto_the_truth

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse


Shock of the Day: Bush Interior Department appointee resigns rather than face an oversight committee hearing next week. It's Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at Interior.

For your reference, she's the one who, in addition to sharing confidential government reports with industry lobbyists, also shared confidential Interior Department documents with a "virtual friend" she met on an internet chat site. MacDonald reportedly commisserated with said "virtual friend" whose opinions she trusted over those of government scientists.

The 'virtual friend' turned out to be a foreign agent.

Posted by: MORE republican corruption | May 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

We need to stop this illegal war immediately! george is personally profiting from the deaths of our nation's soldiers. That is wrong. It is the ONLY reason we are in Iraq - for george "I'm the decision maker" bush to make more money. The next steps that need to be taken are: end the illegal war in Iraq, impeach king george, elect a Democrat to President and then put bush on trail for murder. One count for each soldier that died in this illegal war.

Remember he wants to stay and fight in Iraq when he is here in the US safely behind his desk. Where was this courage during Vietnam? Back then your "fearless leader" cried to his daddy for a job in Texas to keep him out of danger. Then he didn't show up because he was always drunk and coked up. Also there wasn't the oil in Vietnam that would make his bank accounts grow.

Beware republican senators/congressman... your time is coming to an end. This country will not support you if you support the illegal war in Iraq. With any luck in the next election all republicans will be removed from office. Maybe then our country can move forward and have progress.

Posted by: Jay | May 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

The veto is a stamp for continued waste and corruption on an irrelevant cause.

Looks like this will continue till the next administration replaces it.

History shows that power or leadership vacuum in a war-torn country will face chaos for some time before returning to normalcy with the country being partitioned into two or three states polarized with the likes. I think this is imminent to Iraq as the people of US can not afford current open and unaccountable funding indefinitely for a cause that has increasingly become irrelevant over time.

Posted by: Chris | May 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Tried for treason? Sorry, really missing the point of calling Pelosi and Reid traitors because they are doing what the American public approves of. Also, this whole idea that it is a life and death struggle between the U.S. and Islam was created by the United States. Remember when we left troops in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm? Remember Somalia? Yeah, didn't think so. It's our fault, and the only way we can win this war is not through military might, mlitary's have never been able to effectively put down Islmaic insurgencies. No, the real answer is spending money on winning these people's minds. For every "insurgent" we kill in Iraq, more will come in thier place.

Posted by: Curtis | May 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Right on, JD!

"What's in it for me" mentality.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris, wanting world domination and getting it are two different things. The terrorists out there are about 1 percent of the Islamic population which as you know is huge so that makes a little more than 1 million of them. Though that number is by no measure small, it is a number that we can deal with. Go ahead and WANT world domination but they do not have the means to achieve that goal. Instead of the US spending all their resources in Iraq and doing the damage that we have done there, we would be far better served to pursue protecting our borders and preparing this country for another attack which is going to happen no matter what happens in Iraq.

Posted by: Kathy | May 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have stood by Bush in denouncing a timetable on Iraq, although their opposition to setting an end date to an ongoing war hasn't always been the case.

In 1993, Sen. John McCain led an effort to cut off funds immediately for military operations in Somalia after a firefight in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. troops. The former prisoner of war in Vietnam brought a hush to the chamber floor when he asked what would happen if Congress failed to act and more Americans died.

"On whose hands rest the blood of American troops? Ask yourself this question," said McCain, R-Arizona.

Congress ultimately agreed to back President Clinton's request to give him until March 1994 to get troops out, with funding denied after that date. In 1999, Congress passed similar legislation prohibiting money spent to keep U.S. troops in Haiti after May 2000.

Posted by: the hypocrisy of McCain | May 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Bush just sign the bill and add a signing statement like he always does giving him permission to ignore the timetable?

Oh, and presidential candidate Mike Gravel isn't getting enough credit for the so-called "Edwards approach" because Gravel gave this exact same idea during the debate:

http://theseventen.blogspot.com/2007/04/legend-of-mike-gravel.html

Posted by: The 7-10 | May 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Pffttt. And a blog really means something?

Posted by: Pat | May 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Congress should declare war against Al Qaeda in the next Iraq-Afghanistan funding bill. And should also specify that the USA is not at war against Iraq's non-Al Qaeda elements.

Posted by: Dan O'Day | May 2, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

IN THE INSTANT CASE CHENEY IS STAYING ON THE OUTSIDE CHANCE THAT HIS CRIMINAL CRONIES CAN GET CONTROL OF IRAQ OIL; RELEASE OF HIS MEETINGS WITH ENERGY EXECS WOULD PROVE IT. IF WE'RE STILL THERE AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION, THE DEMMIES WILL INHERIT THIS DISASTER. ONLY WAY OUT FOR THEM IS IMPEACHMENT; THIS IS NOT AN EMPIRE AT THE THE DISPOSAL OF "THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE." THE VOTERS MADE THEIR DESIRES MANIFESTLY OBVIOUS IN THE LAST ELECTION AND THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED!

Posted by: SALADIN | May 2, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

That speech by Bush last night... I'd probably have a heart attack, if he EVER said a truthful word.
It's like he lives in a world, where there is no video, or history. Just changing his rhetoric by the moment.

Wasn't it last year, that the Supplemental was signed in June?
Hasn't there always been *pork* in all the supplementals?
Didn't Bush say in 1999, that a President should always have a clear plan, & exit strategy?

I could go on for days.
The amazing thing, is how many people still listen to these guys... and follow.
And of course, how weak the main-stream media has become, rarely challenging the lies & hypocrisy.

Posted by: Jon | May 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

This is the government you utter and complete moron wingers out there think we should support. Tell me, where you born this stupid? I didn't think it was possible.

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- Soaring sectarian violence and government abuses have caused an alarming deterioration in religious freedom in Iraq, prompting a U.S. advisory panel for the first time to place it on a watch list of countries where worship is under severe threat.

Citing gross violations of the rights of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as well as followers of numerous minority beliefs, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom added Iraq to its "watch list" on Wednesday. Violations included arbitrary arrests, torture and rape.'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

drindl:
You and those like you are what is wrong with this country today!

Nero fiddles while Rome burns!

Posted by: X | May 2, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Well JCC, we'll have to see how it turns out I guess.

You think the American public, the vast majority of them anyway, thinks back 2 years when making voting decisions?

No way, it's short attention span theatre these days, 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome.

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

'True Blue' american --- YOU should be tried for treason.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

CC, Bush simply can't "win" anymore, long ago his only course became desperation.

If you think this veto isn't an act of political desperation, you aren't reading your own polls.

Bush "lost" when he abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden and took us to war against a strawman with no red herring WMD's.

That faulty decision, and not this Democratic funding bill, was the virtual beginning of defeat for America in the eyes of the whole world.

And everything since that ultimate error has been nothing more than an attempt to protect the book-cooking no-bidders on the BUshCo gravy train, with Cheney at the loco-motive throttle.

Bush continues to avoid any recognition of reality, as they rip us off for billions in phony construction projects.

"Cui Bono" from Bush's war?

The Halliburtons and the KBR's and the Blackwaters? The OIL COMPANIES?

Since that benefit may well be Bush's only real benchmark, they reached it long ago.

And everything else is just more gravy. The longer they can prolong this war, the lnger the book-cookers benefit.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

'Chris for Prez' -- for god's sake, take a deep breath and double your medication.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Hey Lois! Which is supposed to be Hitler? Pelosi or Reid??

THEY SHOULD BOTH BE TRIED FOR TREASON!!!

Posted by: True-Blue American | May 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

In claiming that Bush won the 'skirmish' but the Dems are better suited to win the larger fight, is it your contention that Bush has fallen into a trap? Did he respond to a metaphorical feint of the Dems? I suppose one can concede that Bush 'won' this alleged 'skirmish' in that he has not yet been forced to change his policies, but he has 'won' nothing - certainly no new supporters are flocking to his side. Certainly the Congress is not forced to change their position. In short, the President is weak and is weakening himself. He has to take whatever Congress will give - so he may end up with nothing.

Posted by: bsimon | May 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

This poster 'chris' is a poster child for everything that is wrong with this country -- everything that is turning us from a great nation to a cheesy banana republic. The nuts are in chrage. the lunatics are running the asylum. The terrified, the simple-minded, the bedwetters and chickenhawks have their bloody hands on the red buttton.

'instead of trying to pretend we live in a democracy instead of a republic.'

'They fully intend to infiltrate our streets and public places'

oh christ, it's not even vietnam... it's the red scare all over again. it's 1955 again, Joseph McCarthy is in the Senate, screaming and ranting about the commie infiltrators... we never learn. we keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I honestly have trouble comprehending how people can be this stupid and still manage to tie their shoes or breathe.

Posted by: drindl | May 2, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

FINALLY!! FINALLY!!! The plain truth has been penned for those willing to read and truly understand what is at stake here.

CHRIS HAS SAID IT PERFECTLY!!

"We need committment to a course of action that will lead to a decisive victory- a timetable of any sort is unacceptable, and any compromise between parties on this matter will lead to disaster in the long run." "It is time for new strategies, and retreating must not be one of them. We are bloodied, yes, but not defeated. You need to understand the enemy- regardless of what the media feeds you they are in it for the long haul and want to kill you because you are American." AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AMERICAN!! "This is a time for action, not politics. Are you truly ready to take the actions necessary to keep our country safe? If you balk, all will be lost."

TAKE THE TIME TO SCROLL UP AND READ CHRIS' ENTIRE AND ACCURATE FORECAST.

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!!! THIS FIGHT-TO-THE-DEATH STRUGGLE CANNOT AND SHOULD BE COMPARED TO ANY WAR WE HAVE FOUGHT IN PAST, EVER!! IF IT CANNOT BE CONTAINED AND WON AT ITS CURRENT LOCATIONS THEN IT WILL SPILL OVER AND BE WON OR LOST HERE AT HOME. WHICH DO YOU PREFER?

Posted by: Chris for Prez | May 2, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi and Reid are candidates for sainthood in my view. Hang in
there and do NOT diddle-daddle to change your stand! Senator
Edwards is correct. Do NOT negotiate. Remember Chamberlin
and Hitler?

Posted by: Lois Lee Horn | May 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I hate the war and wish we had never attacked Iraq. However,for all of you who want us to get out now, be ready for a massive blood bath. How many of you remember Cambodia in the mid-70s? Probably none!! Well over a million were slaughtered after the US left SE Asia. The same will happen in Iraq if we leave prematurely.

Jeff Saeli

Posted by: Jeff Saeli | May 2, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

"Are you truly ready to take the actions necessary to keep our country safe?"

First, why not stop this type of fear mongering? The only thing we have to fear is chickenhawks like you...

9-11 DID NOT bring America to it's knees. You can say it all day long, but it doesn't make it true.

Only the dumbest of Neocons and their fearful chickens believe that BS, I have much more faith in my nation, and in my fellow Americans than that.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse


'These are the enemies we face people- they will come and try to kill us if we do not stand firm!'

to the poster 'Chris'. Iraq is not in Palestine, dear. Are you suggesting we invade Palestine? You people are so paranoid you're insane.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Another sign that the poor deluded supporters of this "war" just don't get it. How many times have I heard or read recently that this war is different than Vietnam, because in THIS case, "the enemy will follow us here," or "THIS time the enemy wants world domination." But how is that so different from the claims that were made about the Communists and North Vietnam. Doesn't anyone remember the old, debunked "Domino Theory" where the cold warriors of yesterday were convinced that if Vietnam fell, it would lead to a Domino effect of country after country going Communist. Replace the word Communist with the words "radical islam," and you have essentially the same talking points that we had for so many years during our last debacle in Vietnam; ill-founded and carefully calculated fear mongering pretending to be an actually foreign policy.

Posted by: StevieB | May 2, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I must disagree with the Fix's characterization that " President Bush won the first major skirmish on Iraq with his veto yesterday". To see why this is wrong, all you need to do is read your own poll parsing! Since the public supports implementation of a troop withdrawal by a wide margin, isn't Bush automatically the loser when vetoes a bill that is in line with the will of the people? By your logic, if Bush wishes to be a "winner" until he leaves office, all he would have to do is to veto every legislation that he dislikes even if the people overwhelmingly support it. He would be declared "winner" of every such skirmish by the MSM until his time in office runs out...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

McCain has got the Delusional vote in his pocket. As for the rest of us who don't live in Fantasyland, he's toast.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | May 2, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Just keep sending the same bill. Either way the war will be over and the troops will be home. And if chaos ensues in Iraq it's solely on the president who started the war and who refuses to listen to reason...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

because our troops are absorbing the attacks so we can live in relative safety.

Hey Chris, what do you want to do, leave them there until they are all dead?? There is only one reason that the United States has not been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11, and thats because the soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan are much easier targets. Any idiot would realize that if they want to kill Americans, they can go to either of these countries and be able to kill them from a distance all the while you get away.

If you really want to make America safe, you'll support a troop withdrawal. The troops overseas can then be used to tighten border security to the point that you can't get across the border without our permission. To the point that every container can be inspected at the seaports and airports. To the point that every last ounce of food and pint of liquid coming into this country can be inspected. The borders of this country can be shut down if only we'd bring the troops home and if only we'd use the National Guard for its intended purpose. I'm betting that if the National Guard was an fighting force that could not be deployed overseas, that you would see its ranks more than quadruple. The fighting force currently in place in Iraq won't get the job done. We need a more mobile, more secretive attack style that relies on good intel (something we don't have under this administration). What we need is our own "insurgency" if you will. Our own little hideouts out in Iraq from where we can hunt down and kill the terrorists without being slaughtered ourselves and without being caught in the crosshairs of a civil war.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 2, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

How did he 'win the skirmish' by veto'ing a popular bill?

EXPLAIN YOUR INSANITY OR JUST STOP WRITING.

Posted by: Ashburn, VA | May 2, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"They fully intend to infiltrate our streets and public places. Not since 9-11 have we really felt the weight of what this means- because our troops are absorbing the attacks so we can live in relative safety."

Weak minded and faithless people who believe this fear mongering tend to vote for Republicans...

And the top-end Republicans just laugh at these daily chickens, because all the while, THEY know it's just propaganda.

All it takes is a few scared rabbits to set the whole warren to hopping and jumping, and cranked-up comments like that one just fan the flames of fearful ingnorance.

Posted by: JEP | May 2, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Compromise? This is a word the WH should learn about--along with malfeasance, misfeasance, nepotism, illegality and unconstitutionality. Bush knows that he'll get the money. Time table? 638 days.

Posted by: _murray_ | May 2, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

To the Congress:
Stop playing with the lives of the troops in the war zone. Think of them rather than only of how you are going to be elected next time.

Posted by: Ron | May 2, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Holla!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Bah. The problem with the whole premise of this piece is that we don't elect congress to make the same decision we would make - we elect them to make BETTER decisions than we would make. Thus, congresspeople should pay less attention to polls of people 6000 miles from the issue and more attention to what the people 60 feet from the issue are saying... they should listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about instead of trying to pretend we live in a democracy instead of a republic.

Posted by: NSw | May 2, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Well said Chris.

Posted by: brainrain | May 2, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

An analysis about the politics of who gains and who loses is a waste of space.

Posted by: brainrain | May 2, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Then mid next year, Bush starts the troop withdrawal anyway, claims Iraq gov is missing their milestones, and the GOP looks like the heroes."

Nice pipe dream JD but inconsistent with the Bush we've all come to know as stubborn and unwilling to admit failure in spite of all the facts plainly visible outside of his WH 'bubble.' My prediction: CONGRESS will start the troop withdrawal via an override of a Bush veto. The R's in Congress will finally read the writing on the wall in a few more months.

"....the GOP looks like the heroes" only if the American public suffers from clinical amnesia regarding their votes in 2006. In other words, no.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 2, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Andrew and AMviennaVA - exactly right. Bush gets nothing at all without congress's approval, and with the public clearly on their side, they can send him the same (or tighter) bill every time he vetoes the last one.

Either he signs one and they come home soon, or he doesn't and they come home right away. Simple as that.

Posted by: Alex | May 2, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

open letter to presidential hopefulls-
Sir/Ma'am,
We need committment to a course of action that will lead to a decisive victory- a timetable of any sort is unacceptable, and any compromise between parties on this matter will lead to disaster in the long run. The whole problem with trying to compromise in this is that it will compromise the security of this nation. We are not faced with Vietnam. This is far worse, in that the people we are fighting really do want world domination. If we do not crush the terrorist networks and work with the sheiks for more wonderful successes like those which have been under-reported, then the enemy will see our departure from Iraq as a god-given victory. If further loss of face was the only price, I would say let us swallow our pride and leave. However, this is not the case! They fully intend to infiltrate our streets and public places. Not since 9-11 have we really felt the weight of what this means- because our troops are absorbing the attacks so we can live in relative safety. When they leave, the attacks will spread and grow until we find ourselves sacrificing even more freedoms in vain attempts to combat chaos here in America. Our borders are weaker than ever, and a new plan by this administration opens them to trucks from Mexico. If the rate of 1.3 percent for inspecting imported food is any indicator, then it is only a matter of time before this new breach is used to bring more discord to our nation- whether in the form of more illegals, tainted food, drugs, or weapons to use against our population. It is time for new strategies, and retreating must not be one of them. We are bloodied, yes, but not defeated. You need to understand the enemy- regardless of what the media feeds you they are in it for the long haul and want to kill you because you are American. They do not believe they have to honor any agreements they make with us. The only peace they intend to offer is in death- and for those who choose to welcome them with open arms in hopes of dealing with them, I wonder what peace your souls can ever know, even then. This said, where do you stand? Will you truly hold the best interests of America at heart, or will you abandon your people for a media circus, short term popularity, corporate dollars, and corruption? Will you have the fortitude to stand up to the terror you know we will soon face if we leave Iraq in chaos? Do you have what it takes to lead a nation perpetually at war? Can you re-focus the American people so they do not lose sight of the sacrifices that made this country great and keep it free? We need such steadfast determination, for without it we are truly lost. I ask you, if you are not too self-absorbed, to acknowledge that you do not have this fortitude, and graciously step aside to support someone who does- as anyone who puts their own desire for glory ahead of the needs of this nation would be disastrous, now more than ever, and have long-term consequences that will lead to the collapse of this nation as we know it. Yes, the future really can be that bleak. Do you have what it takes to steer us away from such dark times? Will you champion true energy independence? Will you champion new and safer materials for armor? Will you clean up the mess in Iraq and secure our borders? Or will you cower in fear, pandering to as many groups as possible, without taking any decisive action- allowing the resources and power available to atrophy in a manner that will make FEMAs beaurocratic wastefullness seem like nothing? This is a time for action, not politics. Are you truly ready to take the actions necessary to keep our country safe? If you balk, all will be lost. Are you ready for that level of responsibility? There is no learning curve or grace period. Do you have what it takes to shoulder this burden? You either do or you do not. If you don't, find redemption in stepping aside, for otherwise, you will be responsible for leading this country to destruction. Which comes first, the future of the American people, or your own interests?

Posted by: Chris | May 2, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The war is probably unwinnable overseas in the old movie WW II context. The choice to be made now is should we continue to conduct it overseas, or bring our kids home to prepare to fight it here. we are at the " kill'em all or leave stage.. nice going politicians... both parties, and CIA and FBI and NSA and Military Intel are guilty. There are no innocents. We have spent trillions in the last decade for military hardware and buildups and we can't defeat, or convert, ragged non-military civilians in their homeland...something like that happened in 1776 and 1976...too bad we didn't write it down..sad bunch of leaders we have.Too many politicians and not enough leaders.

Posted by: roneida | May 2, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

In a televised address to a packed mosque, the Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Authority's Legislative Council called for the killing of every last Jew and American. His speech and murderous prayer were delivered in an unidentified packed mosque and broadcast on an official PA-controlled television station.
According to a recording and transcript of the April 20th broadcast, translated and provided by Palestinian Media Watch, PLC Acting Speaker Ahmed Bahr called the Jews "the cancerous lump... in the heart of the Arab nation." He predicted that "America is on its way to disappear. America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan. America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated, in Lebanon and Palestine."

Adopting the open-palmed gesture of Islamic prayer, as did his audience, the PA official intoned: "Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies.... Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don't leave even one."


This is not Bahr's first appeal for genocide of the Jews and Americans. Just one week earlier, on April 13th, Sudan television broadcast a fiery sermon delivered by the PA legislator in a Sudanese mosque. At the conclusion of his remarks, the Sudanese worshipers opened their palms in supplication and Bahr prayed:

"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet - defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

These are the enemies we face people- they will come and try to kill us if we do not stand firm!

Posted by: Chris | May 2, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

J.D. has stated the most obvious political strategy. We shall see.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 2, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Did Rudy Giuliani comments get mixed up with Bush comments? Oh well, loyal Bushies in Congress still think that Bush will be their savior, just like in 2000 and 2004. They are the most uncompromising among Republicans, so they'll go down with their leader. There are only three scenarios that will end the War: moderate Republicans in Congress side with Dems to make veto-proof majority; Dems get backbone and defund the War; or new Dem prez ends it. People die and money wasted until one of above happens.

Posted by: marilyn delson | May 2, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

How can nobody see this? Obviously, Bush vetoed the timeline bill (or as McConnell calls it, the surrender bill), and will continue to do so until they send him one without a troop withdrawal date. Otherwise, Dems look like heroes for bringing home troops.

(Or the troops are defunded and the Dems are blamed for denying fuel and body armor to our boys.)

Then mid next year, Bush starts the troop withdrawal anyway, claims Iraq gov is missing their milestones, and the GOP looks like the heroes.

Posted by: JD | May 2, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I suspect that most of us in Texas think Sen. Cornyn is the weaker of our two Senators. While I cannot think of a Democrat who could be expected to provide a strong opponent in our next Senatorial election, see this:
-------------------------------------
The following memo is based on a survey of 800 registered likely voters in Texas. Hamilton Beattie & Staff conducted telephone interviewing April 11-15, 2007. The margin of error for the statewide sample is ± 3.5 percentage points, at the 95% confidence level.

1. George W Bush has a negative job rating in Texas (47% positive - 51% negative) and the voters are nearly evenly split on whether their family would be better off with a Democrat or Republican majority in the US Senate (41% Democrats - 43% Republicans).

2. A strong plurality of voters in Texas believe the country is headed in the wrong direction (34% right direction - 49% wrong direction). President Bush's job rating on handling Iraq is even more negative (41% positive - 58% negative).

3. Republican John Cornyn has lower than expected name recognition for an incumbent US Senator, with 39% of the electorate unable to rate Cornyn either favorably or unfavorably. Overall he is 41% favorable - 19% unfavorable.

4. Senator Cornyn's generic reelect versus a Democrat is under 50% (47% Republican John Cornyn - 38% Democratic candidate; 15% undecided).
---------------------------------
I voted for Gov. Bush in 1998, as did over 70% of the electorate. This marks a sea change, and Iraq is the issue that drives it.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 2, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

...willing to have troops killed in order to bring them home.

Posted by: Current R Policy | May 2, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Andrew,
Since congress funds things, it would technically and actually be the Dems fault. I'm glad to see that you are willing to have troops killed in order to bring them home.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats should not give Bush ANY money. See how he likes that. Forget the blame game about how the troops need the money and it'll be the Dems fault if they're unprotected. Bush put them there in the first place. It's his fault and his mismanaged, false war is no longer winnable. Forget the money, bring them all home now!

Posted by: Andrew | May 2, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Potential candidates on the traditional right seem to be hiding under a rock--they don't want the Bush-Cheney taint. So to find yourself a nationally admired figure (a kind of apple pie), in a field where something like 70 percent of likely voters (many your natural ideological enemies) still haven't expressed any opinion about the race, and where the opposition includes the 70-year-old John McCain, who both hates and sucks up to Bush (therefore getting neither advantage), and Mitt Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts, that's luck.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, why didn't he just sign the bill and then ignore it, like he does every other law on the books in this country?

Posted by: Kansas | May 2, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

There's a game that's played by staffers from the more or less reasonable and professional circles, about who might or might not get White House jobs. The game breaks everybody up.

Rudy's closest adviser, Peter Powers, whom handicappers mark as White House chief of staff, is a grade-school friend. Then there's Denny Young, often called the consigliere in the Rudy camp in a partly ironic and partly proud identification with Mafia lore. Next in line is Tony Carbonetti, the son of one of Rudy's schoolhood chums, who has spent his entire career with Rudy, as aide and operative. "He'll be Karl Rove, which he isn't, but that's how Rudy will treat him," says a longtime Rudy adviser.

Then Sunny Mindel, his famously intemperate spokeswoman: she's been relieved of that job in his campaign--she still holds it for the Giuliani business--but is expected to get it back in the White House. No one in any circle has ever quite been able to explain Sunny--except to say that her hysteria matches Rudy's own.

The punch line (this is where everybody breaks up) to the Giuliani White House organization chart is that the intern will be Cristyne Lategano.

Except that now there is an even better East Wing joke. Rudy people tend, when they speak of the prospective First Lady, to use an exclamation point: Judi! (as they often use the exclamation point for Rudy!). Other than to hope that her unlikeliness somehow reinforces the idea of Rudy's Everyman authenticity, there is no real way that anybody can seem to rationalize Judi, the nurse whom he may or may not have met in a cigar bar (they did often, as the New York Post says, "rendezvous" at Cigars & Bar on West 58th Street in Manhattan). Even among Rudy's staunchest people, she's seen as the most likely implosion point. It is not just her hidden first marriage ("Rudy and Judi's wedding wasn't a small wedding," one aide notes. "This was, in New York terms, a royal wedding. There were thousands of stories written about it--and she didn't think she ought to correct her marital statistics?"), the dead dogs (in the late 1970s she worked for a surgical company that demonstrated its medical staplers on live dogs, which were cut open and stapled shut, pretty much killing them), her voluble discussion of how much money she's spending on her clothes and on the redecoration of their new house ("She's spending him dry," says an aide), the open war with his children (she is said to control access to Rudy), and now her hope to join in on Cabinet discussions (and his apparent hope to have her), but, most problematically, the fact that her interest in publicity is as great as his.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Why didn't Bush use his routine - signing the bill but with a long signing statement saying he objected to the timetable? Isn't he very good at that?

Posted by: RJ | May 2, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

He's shameless. There's no apology about Rudy doing what Rudy wants to do. He had two public relationships as mayor. One was with Cristyne Lategano, his former communications director, which he made few efforts to hide. Doubly defying standards of convention, he continued to keep Lategano on a city payroll. And then there's Judi, the current wife. He doesn't care.

This is the "goomah" issue. Rudy has expressed his belief that marriage is improved by a goomah (as rendered in The Sopranos)--the Italian-American dialect word for a significant other woman. His grandfather had had a goomah, Rudy said, with some sensitivity and depth of feeling, and his father had one, and what worked worked.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

And, speaking of banana republics, there was Rudy's extra-legal plan to set aside the 2001 mayoral election (after his term limit had been reached, so he couldn't run again) and, by legislative acclamation (thwarted only at the last minute), extend his term.

The wives: if Rudy's marital history isn't crazy, it's surely way over the line of middle-class domestic political norms. You can't marry your second cousin (Regina Peruggi, now president of Kingsborough Community College) and, on top of that, annul the deal, as though this were the 18th century. You can't, in a public snit, break up with your wife in a news conference (provoking that wife, Donna Hanover, to call a counter-news conference where she suggested he was a public liar and adulterer). You can't carry on, as we used to say, in front of everybody, not without some major contrition--not if you want a political future.

--unless america has just given up on the idea of 'character.'..

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

What's lost in the translation is the neurosis and eccentricity and ludicrousness and hubris of Rudy as supreme ruler. That's in the finer details.

It's always worth recapping Giuliani's famous riposte to a ferret owner who called in to the mayor's weekly radio show to protest the city's ban on them as pets: "There is something deranged about you.... The excessive concern you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist.... There is something really, really very sad about you.... This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.... You should go consult a psychologist.... Your compulsion about--your excessive concern with it is a sign that there is something wrong in your personality.... You have a sickness, and I know it's hard for you to accept that.... You need help."

There were, memorably, his bitter fights with anybody in his administration who got more publicity than he did (especially his police commissioner William Bratton, whom he fired because Bratton got credit for the drop in crime); his refusal (more childish and foot-stamping than strictly racist) to meet with virtually any elected black official during his tenure (justified with a series of odd ruminations: " and his authoritarian campaign against jaywalkers (resulting in formidable street barricades).

His own children end up, too, as forlorn figures in his imperial city. Given their parents' marital discord, they were often left in the care of the police. A subject of both humor and concern among Rudy's closest aides, the children--Caroline, 18, and Andrew, 21--were on a police diet, too. To keep them happy and quiet, the police stuffed them full of food. Father and children are now estranged--his son pointedly says he won't campaign for his father, because of his demanding golf-training schedule (he learned the game from a member of his police detail); his daughter seems disinclined to speak of her father at all. (On the other hand, there are, perhaps, so many bad fathers in American politics that it might not damage you even if you turn out to be the worst. Even when the children themselves--and I believe this is the first time this has ever happened in a modern presidential campaign--disavow you.)

And Bernie Kerik. There is no circumstance under which a politician with any sense of vulnerability or accountability or merely the need to maintain a sense of appearances hires Bernie Kerik (no less as the police commissioner). Kerik is from Paterson, New Jersey, where I'm from. He came to live in a house in the suburb just down the road from where my parents lived. I knew or had heard the same stories everyone else--my parents and my parents' friends--had heard. Which it seems impossible Rudy would not have heard, too. And if, somehow, he hadn't heard them, we know now from Rudy's own grand-jury testimony that he was, in fact, officially told. In other words, one of the most experienced prosecutors of organized-crime figures has spelled out for him what is widely rumored--that his corrections chief and prospective police commissioner might be Mobbed up--and he doesn't get it. Yup. And then goes on to become business partners with the guy. And then becomes his sponsor for high federal office.

Posted by: Rudy is insane | May 2, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"In short, President Bush won the first major skirmish on Iraq with his veto yesterday..."

You make it sound like the veto was a surprise or a masterful political maneuver. Pshaw! Balderdash! Horsepuckey! Bowl Sheet! Are you running around with Eric Cantor (Mindless Partisan-VA) again?

Winning in politics involves doing something your opponents can't immediately anticipate, something bold. Your spin on a mundane fact backs up the anonymous woman above who characterized your viewpoint as "...the Republican mindset of DC -- your cocktail party bubble."

The veto was an opening pawn move (1.e4 or 2.d4) that surprises no one. The D's response will involve a major piece on the chess board.

"Drill down a layer, however, and you start to see why -- despite displeasure toward the war among the broad American public -- that none of the three leading GOP presidential candidates has broken publicly with President Bush on Iraq policy."

Look forward a year and you start to see why the GOP is doomed across both the Legislative and Executive branches.

"Forty-nine percent of Republicans said they would prefer a presidential candidate in 2008 that adopted a "different approach" from President Bush on Iraq, while 44 percent opted for a candidate who would continue Bush's policies. Add in Republican-leaning independents and the number of those who prefer a candidate with a different approach moves up to 54 percent."

If the R's don't heed this wake-up call they deserve the spanking they'll get in 2008.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 2, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Fund the troops, with the timetable, AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. If the funds are on the table, then it is Bush who is denying the funds to the troops.

If Bush really thinks he has a plan that will work, he can go back and have a new bill passed in September or October, or whenever there is 'progress'. Afterall, NOTHING SUCCEEDS LIKE SUCCESS. All we have so far is failure and demonstrable incompetence.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 2, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Bush did the right thing with a veto. Reid and Pelosi are two of the most reckless leaders I have seen in a long time. They are ignorant on foreign policy and had know plan on what would happen if we did as they wanted us to do. Where is the media on all this? Instead of quoting these useless polls why don't you ask this leadership some tough question on what happens after a pullout? The media has become as reckless as the dems. Just take out the time line set some benchmarks, cut back on all the pork spending and Bush will sign the bill.

Posted by: suel | May 2, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

'Bush Veto Puts Pressure on Democrats to Compromise'

that's a headline from the now violently right-leaning ABC News. that's the DC framing -- as if the 06 elections had never happened. The corporate media still lives in republican lala land, where what the citiziens of this country want isn't even considered.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Is there a single 'official' in this administration that isn't a criminal?

'A senior government official is under investigation by a congressional committee for allegations he engaged in "widespread fraud, waste, and abuse" -- the same misbehavior he is supposed to ferret out.

Johnnie Frazier, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is said to have rigged contract bids for cronies, fraudulently charged the government for improper travel, wasted tens of thousands of dollars on an erstwhile office remodeling and may have destroyed files that were proof of his wrongdoing, according to accounts given to lawmakers by current and former employees.

As his department's senior investigator, Frazier is supposed to "detect and prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement" at Commerce, according to his office's Web site.'

Posted by: MORE republican corruption | May 2, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Republicans in Congress are contemplating the strong possibility that many more of them will end up being in "blue states" in the 2008 Presidential Election. So, I suspect a lot more of them are looking at these polls and making plans to distinguish themselves from the President--and in fact their likely Presidential nominees in 2008--but just not quite yet.

Posted by: DTM | May 2, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Hon, most of us 'made sense' of these numbers long ago. We don't live in the Republican mindset of DC -- your cocktail party bubble. We live in small towns and communities, we can see the bumper stickers, the signs in windows, on lawns, the coffins coming back of the kids in our communities.. whole towns coming out for the funeral, to honor our lost children. Lost? For what? For some elusive, everchanging 'goal' -- some ill-defined, possibly impossible goal that we never really understood to begin with, something most of us know has really nothing to do with us?

This president couldn't win a dogfight. It's time to bring our troops home.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

This only helps the Dems, as the GOP contenders will eventually need to balance their desire to please hard-core/pro-Bushie Republicans with the reality of winning a general election with voters very much against the war and W's actions.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | May 2, 2007 8:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company