Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Will Vitter Fallout Affect La. Gov. Race?

After a one-week hiatus from The Line due to vacation, we're back with a look at the five most competitive governor's races in the country.

The top two slots remain filled by races set for this November, which will inevitably be looked at by national political observers as leading indicators of what to expect in 2008. Both races, however, will hinge on state-based politics rather than the national atmosphere.

In Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's (D) political struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina badly damaged her electoral prospects, leading her to bow out of a run for a second term. Democrats at first struggled to find an adequate replacement but now appear to have settled on state Sen. Walter Boasso, a former Republican, as their candidate. While Republicans hold an edge in the race, the building scandal around Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) could complicate Rep. Bobby Jindal's (R) road to the governor's mansion.

In Kentucky, Gov. Ernie Fletcher's (R) administration has been beset by ethical problems from the start. While Fletcher has sought to paint the problems as nothing more than partisan attacks, his polling numbers suggest Kentucky voters aren't buying it.

Due to the extenuating local circumstances in these two states, one should be leery of any analysis that invests larger national meaning in either of these races.

As always, the number one ranked race is the most likely to switch parties. Critiques? Kudos? The comments section awaits.

To the Line!

5.Washington: Former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R), the man who used to be the next governor of Washington State, is in the midst of a statewide town hall tour, the precursor to an announcement of his 2008 candidacy later this year. Rossi's events are being billed as "Idea Raisers" by Republicans, a vehicle for residents to voice their concerns and thoughts about the problems facing the state. It's a sound strategy. For Rossi to beat Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) in 2008, he has to find a way to cleanse himself of the taint that having an "R" after his name is sure to have in this Democratic-leaning state. By running as an outsider willing to listen to new ideas and adopt new approaches, Rossi is hoping he can take partisanship off the board. It's a tough task given the national atmospherics and Gregoire's strong fundraising ($2 million raised to date). But, Rossi's all-but certain candidacy keeps this one on the Line. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Indiana: Count us impressed by Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger's (D) early fundraising returns. He announced late last month that he had raised $1 million in the first few months of his campaign -- a solid total for a first time candidate and a reflection of Schellinger's institutional support. Schellinger will face a real primary challenge in the form of former Rep. Jill Long Thompson (D) who formally entered the race earlier this week. Thompson starts in a fundraising hole but support from the powerhouse money-bundling group EMILY's List should help her be competitive. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) will run a competent and well-financed campaign but it's clear that voters in the state are at least willing to consider alternatives. If Schellinger is the nominee, this could be a barn burner, (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Missouri: It's no secret that Gov. Matt Blunt's (R) support for a 2006 constitutional amendment on stem-cell research hurt him among ardent pro-lifers who make up a significant portion of the Republican base. So, it makes sense that Blunt is already up with radio ads touting his pro-life credentials and seeking to paint state Attorney General Jay Nixon (D) as far too liberal in his views on choice. The early ads show that Blunt knows he is in for a tough race and is trying to firm up his base in the early going so that he can turn the contest into a partisan battle, believing that Missouri tends to lean toward Republicans. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Louisiana: This race drops from the top spot on The Line for two main reasons. First, Boasso is showing a willingness to put huge sums of his own money on television, a decision that at least gives Democrats some hope. Second, it's still too early to know whether the problems surrounding Vitter, who was an early and strong supporter of Jindal, will bleed over into the governor's race. We tend to doubt it but far stranger things have happened. If you haven't had a chance to check out Boasso's ads -- funded by more than $1 million from his own pocket -- do so. They're unique, which should help Boasso cut through the clutter. Boasso's increased presence in the race creates the possibility that Jindal will not be able to win the 50 percent he needs on Oct. 20 to avoid a runoff. And, in a runoff all bets are, well, off. Jindal is still the strong favorite, however. (Previous ranking: 1)

1. Kentucky: It's getting ugly down in the Bluegrass State. Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) called for a special session of the state legislature only to be rebuffed by the Democratic-controlled state House who refused to go back into session. The local press cast it as yet another blow to Fletcher's chances at re-election; legendary Louisville Courier-Journal columnist Al Cross called the session a "farce" and added that Fletcher had "squandered his potential goodwill by loading up the session with political items:" Ouch. We don't underestimate Fletcher, especially after the stellar primary campaign he ran against former Rep. Anne Northup. But the deck appears stacked against him. Barring some sort of major mistake by former Lt. Gov. Steve Beshear (D) this race looks like like a Democratic pickup. (Previous ranking: 2)

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 13, 2007; 8:00 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Familiar Faces Returning to McCain '08
Next: Saturday's Post: Inside the McCain Implosion

Comments

glzeno achepvx inascdl btwzy fhlyprasw croztdhxv mefwpinuo http://www.bpfn.kphtvfni.com

Posted by: iqrymt ndwlsax | September 7, 2007 6:44 AM | Report abuse

zmqdx biplamcwh hlzypimf gxhatwlj jnrxva wtsbrl czlbvq

Posted by: ekdpnb kyqdbutms | September 7, 2007 6:43 AM | Report abuse

hqtriscbu sbytdnc aeonkf lfkiqwun ctbknzeq rwil njdkol http://www.tpfzb.kwfhuqmbx.com

Posted by: izvmjw ceaozy | August 13, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

myvd dagxsq slxdjzro edlj gzrqvkd fsgnrcm dfgmezvut

Posted by: irdxfm ksgc | August 13, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

In answer to HoosierBornDC's comment(and I appreciate it being about the post at hand):

"A Democrat for IN governor whose last name isn't Bayh? No way... not gonna happen, not in that state."

Not only can it happen, it did happen. Immediately following Governor Bayh's two terms, Democratic Governor Frank O'Bannon won two terms.

I've never heard of an architect as the favorite of a party establishment for a Senate or Governor's seat. Who is Mr. Schellinger? I'm pleased if he's a strong candidate, but i'm curious. Chris can you enlighten us?

Posted by: st paul sage | July 16, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes I'm defending her... she's not bad, I just prefer Moore in the primary.

I think people can see right through Bill Graham's "lower the gas-tax" scheme last year.

My point was if they're going to vote for a woman Commissioner of Agriculture, a "man's job" and a woman US Senator, then I have a feeling they'll be fine voting for a woman governor. Besides, she'll come in with strong support in her old senate district down around New Bern/Morehead City... areas that we either aren't winning now or have to fight for a slim majority. On top of that, she's won twice fairly easily statewide.

Posted by: Annoyed | July 16, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

This story is getting funnier all the time, now with the diapers being included in his "Preferences", there is another story about some guy having sex with his bicycle or motorbike, wondering if he will be called a "Pedal-phile".

Posted by: lylepink | July 15, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Annoyed, so your defending Perdue...but she won't receive your vote in the primary. Hmm..laughable. I'm telling you that conservative democrats here in NC would likely vote for Graham than Perdue in a general election. Conservative NC Dems. would still be hesitant to vote for a woman governor or President. I believe that. I think Graham has a great shot against Moore, and would almost definately beat Perdue. Right now though, I will agree that treasurer Moore should be considered the frontrunner for the governor's race. But Graham is really gaining steam and has a great shot of taking the governor's mansion in 08'.

Posted by: reason | July 14, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Dino Rossi has been using his "non-profit," "non-partisan," Forward Washington Foundation to run an illegal, tax-free campaign for governor. The ploy is so transparent Washington's largest (and conservative-leaning) paper said Forward Washington "did not pass the smirk test.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003768398_dinoed02.html

The Dems recently filed a complaint and the Public disclosure commission has decided to investigate. And this hilarious YouTube video breaks Rossi's claims to non-partisanship wide open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSmeEW6a39M&e

Posted by: Governor Table Wine | July 14, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Lighten up Scott, ptbGOP's comment wasn't really about you personally.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 14, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Ahem, proudtobeGOP...I've been posting here off and on for the better part of a year. Hardly a newbie. Who are you?

I make no apology for pointing out that there are UMPTEEN stories about Iraq TODAY in WaPo.

But then again, if you're "proud to be GOP," it's a given that you put party before nation, so I wouldn't expect you to respond positively to any appeal for civility, fair play, or common sense.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Legend has it that every few years, Zouk shrivels and forms a polyester cocoon, in which he hibernates for one election cycle. Then he is reborn, a fresh new Young Republican, in time to preach the gospel of self-interested, anti-intellectual xenophobia to future generations.

Circle of life...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Where was Zouk in the late '60's? He must have been busy... if he had been in the 'Nam, we never would have lost.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Please stay on topic!

Is there a way to force people to actually post on what the article is about or remove posts that are unrelated?

Also annoyed at the person who talked about NC- we've elected a woman Secretary of State (over Richard Petty), Superintendent of Schools, Commissioner of Labor, Multiple Judges and Justices including Chief Justice (on multiple occasions), Lt. Governor, Commissioner of Agriculture (a big one) and US Senator. There's not much left besides Governor and I think they'll be fine with her... they've elected her twice already and people aren't stupid, they know what the Lt. Gov does (steps in when Gov is away). I'm for Moore in the primary honestly but if she's the nominee she'll be fine.

Posted by: Annoyed | July 13, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

zuok, zuok

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

And, most telling, Zouk believes that the clever entrapment of Al Quaeda in Iraq is parallel to the Machiavellian way he and the western Allies permitted the Soviets to trap themselves behind the Iron Curtain...

by fighting Rommel in North Africa and landing at Anzio.

I am not making this up - he said so today.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Zouk also thinks that Al Quaeda in Iraq has come to combat us on our chosen ground in Anbar - the culmination of four years of clever planning by the Pentagon.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

He also fought Rommel in North Africa and landed just in time at Anzio so the Red Army could drop an Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The only way to combat them is to play by the same rules. You can only combat hate with love. Intolerance with understanding. Racism with unity.

The year is no longer 1962. The future is now. Last post of the day for me.

Zouk and the fascsits turned this site into a waste of time. You still can't stop me zouk. I just want these people to see your face. Last post. Have a good weekend everybody

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 13, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

or Haitian, or from Martinique, or some such.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time. Thank you ZOuk/trosky for showing your face.

Your party is done and has no chance of in 08. That should be obvious by reading your posts to any independant thinker.

What a waste of time. To everybody else. This is the GOP plan everywhere. Zoul says thy "win" in a free market of ideals. Read this blog. Sabotage. They win by sabotaging the conversation. By sabotaging the argument. It's not that they "win". It's that the other side gets sick of talking to a brick wall and gives up.

HOW CAN YOU TELL A BLIND PRESON WHAT THE COLOR BLUE LOOKS LIKE?

They don't win. They try and silence all non-gop voices. Anybody who watches the news see's what FOX has turned the mdeia into. Now the people know these people are lying fascsits that only care about $$$$. Sell-outs that are in the pockets of defense/oil/drugs

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 13, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun and Cassandra:

Zouk is Dominican. He explained it in an earlier post.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two leading Republican senators say they will demand President Bush offer a plan to start reducing U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of the year.

Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana are proposing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would also declare the Senate's 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq "obsolete" and in need of revision, Lugar says in a prepared statement to be delivered Monday on the floor of the Senate.

"Our amendment mandates that the administration immediately initiate planning for post-September contingencies, including a drawdown or redeployment of forces," Lugar's statement says. "It requires those plans to be presented to Congress by October 16 of this year, and it states that the plans should be designed to be executable beginning not later than December 31."

Lugar's statement says the buildup of troops in Iraq "must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is withdrawal, redeployment, or some other option. We saw in 2003 after the initial invasion of Iraq, the disastrous results of failing to plan adequately for contingencies."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra: "Does anyone find it --ironic, that zouk sits on his fat, pimply white as* all day, every day,..."

Thanks for making me hurl. Nice way to start the weekend. 8>P

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone find it --ironic, that zouk sits on his fat, pimply white as* all day, every day, typing, about how somebody else should serve five tours of duty in Iraq?

Posted by: Cassandra | July 13, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

proudtobegop -- why is it up to theUS to decide what the 'end state' is in Iraq? I thought that was supposed to be up to the people of Iraq. Otherwise, we will be there forever. Which of course is what Bush and Cheney really intend, no matter what the consequences to our military capability.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"Al Qaeda" refers to the group we stopped chasing, now reconstituting without much harassment in Pakistan.

"Al Qaeda IN IRAQ" refers to an Iraqi nationalist group, one of many worldwide to use the name following the success of the 9/11 attack and the confused American response; specifically, the failure to capture Bin Laden when he was cornered. (See also the cancellation by Don Rumsfeld of an operation in Pakistan against Zawahiri.)

But Osama and Zawahiri better not hide in any spider holes. We're good at spider holes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I am trying to find some record, any record, of the objective truth being reported accurately on FOX News.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=IJP.072.0393A

International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 72:393-401

Comments on the Treatment of a Narcissistic Patient

Joan Coderch

In this work I propose to illustrate some aspects of my way of understanding and conducting the psychoanalytic process and also my way of interpreting resistance and transference. In order to do this I will present clinical material describing my treatment of a patient with a markedly narcissistic personality. At the same time, I will also discuss the relationship observed in this patient between narcissism and the psychotic side of the personality, as understood in the sense described by Bion when he divides the personality into its neurotic and psychotic aspects. I will attempt to show that psychotic functioning is a tactic used by the narcissistic self to deny reality--i.e. the existence of and need for an object and the self's dependency on that object--in order to be able to sustain its omnipotent role.

In the course of my first interviews with the patient, a young bachelor I will refer to as Mr A, he told me that, albeit unwillingly, he had felt different...

Posted by: Don't give up, Zouk... there is hope | July 13, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky/Zouk:

Do you have ANY friends at all?
Does anyone enjoy your company?
What do you do when you take time off from posting logically weak insults aimed at people you have never met?
Do you ever look at an article in the paper, or read something on-line, that makes you think "Gee... maybe I was wrong"?

Everyone else: Don't hate him. Pity him. But keep your hands and feet away from his mouth.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

'Timothy Gatto, I am Trustee for 2 young men who have served multiple tours now and I think we need to get Webb-Hagel revived. It just needed 3 more votes to get to 60.'

I agree. It's inhuman what is being done to these kids. And they keep squeezing them harder and harder, as they get more desperate for troops.

Posted by: Tim | July 13, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Sen. Warner that the administration should absolutely have a contingency plan in place for Sept. if/when Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker come back with a less than satisfactory report on progress after the full implementation of the surge.

Americans need to keep in mind the consequences of a hasty retreat or handing AlQaeda what it can claim as a victory. Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters via a video linkup from Iraq that "there will be consequences" if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon.

"With the support of the American people, I'm convinced that we can continue to make progress," he said.

"What troubles me about this debate -- and it is important and it needs to be debated, for sure -- is it seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world -- and then determine how we can reach that end state and how much time it will take," added Mixon, who commands troops in northern Iraq, including the violent Diyala province.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 13, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I am trying to find a photo of the brave Dem candidates who debated on fox news.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

ignorant rightwingnut coward

you may not assign your own well-deserved name to another.

For once in your life try to exhibit a sliver of creativity. this is surely easier than telling the truth which I would never ask of you, knowing you are incapable of that emotion.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The one photo the GOP does not want anyone to see was snapped at yesterday's NAACP GOP Presidential Candidate Forum. The NAACP invited all 9 Republican candidates to the forum, but only one showed up: Tom Tancredo. All the Democratic Presidential hopefuls showed up for their forum.

The excuses given by the Republican campaigns mostly had to do with scheduling conflicts--just too busy to make it.

The resulting photo of Tancredo--standing on a stage of empty podiums sums up the Republican party's commitment to civil rights in America: the only Republican interested is the guy who's terrified of Mexicans.

And not a single newspaper or TV station carried it.
They just didn't think it was important that 8 out of 9 republican Presidential candidates were "no shows" for a debate at the NAACP. NOW, if it had been DEms -- front page on every paper.

here's the photo -- Tancredo and 8 empty podiums. Hilarious.

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/07/frameshop-a-p-1.html

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

""Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992"

Does anyone else see an insult in there? I guess you have to be KOZ/trotsky/ignorant rightwingnut coward to see that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Timothy Gatto, I am Trustee for 2 young men who have served multiple tours now and I think we need to get Webb-Hagel revived. It just needed 3 more votes to get to 60.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 13, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

At least there is some entertainment value in the KOZ/trotsky/Libs posts. Che is just long and boring and always off-topic.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The resident twin clowns respond in their usual way. zouk obsession and attach any good news to clinton. deny bush anything good.


hey ace, when did the terror attacks start?
"Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992"

Still the same MO : Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea seemed ready Friday to take a first step toward scaling back its nuclear weapons program, perhaps this weekend, as U.N. inspectors prepared to monitor the shutdown of its sole operating atomic reactor don't look now - good news. how far buried back in the NYT do you think this will be?"

Thanks for providing me with yet another example of why the current Bush Doctrine of "Invade First, Do The Hard Work Later" is so brain-dead. What, will NK no longer be a part of that there nasty "Axis of Evil?" We won't be able to attack them? I can see tears forming in Dick Cheney's eyes.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

with any luck, the $300m will be laundered in a Dubai casino and will not be used to make a tactical nuke.

Posted by: boom! | July 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I just read about the story of a young Army Sergeant by the name of Erik Botta. Botta is 26 years old and hails from Port St. Lucie. Erik is like most 1st generation Americans, he wants to work hard and make something of himself.

But young Sergeant Botta, an Army reservist, has a slight problem. It seems as if every time that he gets comfortable and gets moving on all eight cylinders, he gets sent to Iraq. Sure, many guys have been sent to Iraq. They have to make due, right? Well this would be true for most, but Botta is getting tired of it, after all he has served in Afghanistan and Iraq on four other tours, this will be his fifth!

Come on, enough is enough! How many times can a guy kiss his wife and kids goodbye and go to a foreign land and kill people? What's that done for his marriage? What's that done to his head? Would you feel comfortable being around a guy that spent five tours in a combat zone in less than six years? I'm a retired Army Sergeant myself, and I'll tell you point blank, I wouldn't. He could flashback and make a grab at someone's throat at the slightest provocation! Of course I'm exaggerating here, and I don't believe that Erik would do any such thing, but really, what's it done to his head? Enough is enough. You can't tell someone to do five hardship tours back to back. Think of this also, this guy is a Reservist! He's not even on active duty!

Posted by: Timothy Gatto | July 13, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thieves have stolen nearly $300 million US dollars from a bank in Baghdad, police and a bank official said Thursday, in what was the biggest theft in Iraq's history.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

We have also learned to scroll past anything labeled zouk, trotsky, or any message containing the word 'Libs' because they are all pathetic drivel.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Study: Teen Birth Rate Hits Record Low Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low

Posted by: blame bush | July 13, 2007 12:39 PM

Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Numerous military and diplomatic analysts argue that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would in fact "prevent Iraq's multiple sectarian conflicts from spreading beyond its borders and gives Iraq and its neighbors the right incentive to help resolve Iraq's internal conflicts."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has regularly touted his leadership in the wake of 9/11 as one of his major selling points. A host of 9/11 responders have alleged, however, that Giuliani provided them with poor radios, misled them into working amidst toxic fumes, and most recently, hastily cleared out the rubble before bodies were all recovered.

Six weeks after 9/11, Giuliani abandoned efforts to recover remaining bodies and buckled to pressure from developers eager to "scoop" the rubble:

The fact is that the Mayor's switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment.

Yesterday, Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) -- the nation's largest firefighters organization, consisting of 280,000 members -- assailed Giuliani, detailing how the mayor ditched body-recovery efforts only 24 hours after recovering the $230 million in gold. "He found the gold on October 31, and on November 1 is when he issued the order to remove the firefighters from their recovery mode."

Posted by: 'america's mayor' LOL | July 13, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- For what it's worth, I heartily agree that, as my preferred presidential candidate has put it, we need to be as careful in the way we leave Iraq as we were reckless going in. Without a doubt, some sort of residual containment force will have to be a part of such a careful withdrawal. Whether that's stationed in the North, or just over the horizon, I'm not sure. But presumably changing the mission to that degree would allow for a substantial reduction in forces in the near future -- which I think folks of all political stripes are in favor of.

Oh, and as to the Webb-Hagel act -- pretty sad to see all these republicans who have been lauded by the press for breaking with the WH vote against such a sensible piece of legislation written by two guys with legitimate expertise. Very sad.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.

Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea seemed ready Friday to take a first step toward scaling back its nuclear weapons program, perhaps this weekend, as U.N. inspectors prepared to monitor the shutdown of its sole operating atomic reactor

don't look now - good news. how far buried back in the NYT do you think this will be?

Posted by: Lib bias | July 13, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Scott from PacNW, writes
"Please stay off topic. And use lots of ad hominem attacks, too. Thanks a bunch"

Normally I would agree with you. But the Governor Line is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Futile argument with neocons is much more fun.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky: you say "I must guess that you advocate not invading under any circumstance and retreating whenever the option presents itself, according to your own Lib logic."

My point was that you seem to advocate invading under any circumstance/reason/trumped up charge no matter how slight, no matter how ephemeral. Given time, Iraq might iron out its own problems. Might not. Anyone who says they have the answer is an idiot. Anyone who says that more will die if we stay than if we go is also an idiot. Certainly whoever thought invading Iraq would be quick and easy (and there were plenty of people) was an idiot. Agreed?

Let me put it another way. Kerry indicated that if RFK or HH or McGovern had been elected President in the '60's that we would still have left Vietnam but that there would be a lot fewer names on the Vietnam Wall. Agreed?

If your buddy Bush-Cheney had been elected President in 1960 I have little doubt we'd all be dead by now. Agreed?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

ahem, Scott....we regulars at the Fix are in the habit of discussing whatever it is we feel like, despite policing efforts by newbies and random attacks by annoying anonymous posters. Over time, we have learned to scroll past anything from che, as it continues to be a veritable free-for-all here on a daily basis, and we like it like that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 13, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh I keep forgetting that every single person that means to do us harm is just sitting in Afghanistan waiting for enough americans to arrive so they can give up.

Hey i got a great idea, let's go to afghanistan and kill some of those bad guys. why didn't anyone think of this before?

That should read "No SUCCESSFUL laws passed here since 1/20."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, Colin, JimD and Judge all had wise words today. I agree with bsimon and JimD [what, yet again?] that we should not simply walk away.

Attempting the diplomatic initiative, however late, is better than not attempting it. Troop redeployment, if the Kurdish north is still an option, makes sense. Everybody except the west hates the Kurds so we should not abandon them to their decidedly non-western neighbors. The Kurds like us better than they like their neighbors, in return.

When we held Saddam at bay by air power for 12 years he was unable to kill in Mosul and Basra, but ruled the central provinces with utter brutality. If the Saudis and Iranians can agree not to squeeze each other too hard, even by proxy, tension will be reduced in the central provinces, and the vacuum we leave there may be better for the locals than the hellish dictator we first engaged. Otherwise, they may kill each other. I do not want my guys refereeing that.

The south seems lost in its own intra-shiite tribalism. I have no clue.

A smaller force, deployed in the north, could train, could do counter-insurgency work, could help defend the northern pipeline, and could help secure the Syrian and northern Iranian borders. But I do not know if our window of opportunity is still open.

B-H resolves our domestic bickering and is better than our current policy. Add in Biden's recognition of ethnic autonomy and its a start. bsimon remembers when I feared that once the Rs adopted B-H the Ds would reject it. That fear looks less like skepticism and more like politics-as-usual now.

Quite aside from our exit strategy from Iraq and long term goals in the Middle East, how is it possible that Webb-Hagel did not get 60 votes? Do these guys just want to destroy the Army and the Marines?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 13, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Please stay off topic. And use lots of ad hominem attacks, too. Thanks a bunch

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

We the zany Libs of the fix blog, do hereby swear to conduct battle with the evil Zouk by any means necessary. since we have very limited intellectual ability and have no scientific data to support our views, we will be forced to resort to insults, slander, lies, posting under fake names, using the enemies name, and general mayhem. We refuse to stay on topic or rebutt any challenges to our position.

If any allies of the evil zouk emerge. we will promptly call them zouk as well and include them in our jihad. We will support any Lib position, no matter how demonic and will ignore any good news concerning Republicans.

this is our cause and we take to it gladly, considering we have no other traditional activites to keep us busy, such as gainful employment, hobbies or personal relationships.

Our favorite tactic will be to cut and paste from every Lib blog we can find. We also like to selectively change words to zouk's statements and repost them. this takes no creativity or intelligence so don't be too impressed. We just think it is amusing and fun to do.

to the ramparts!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, how many of us are on here today?

Posted by: Ignorant Rightwingnut Coward | July 13, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Yet no attacks here since 9/11."

BZZT!!

That should read "No SUCCESSFUL attacks here since 9/11." And apparently enough threats to give Chertoff a gutache.

Even Tricky Dick said that it was only a matter of time before we were attacked again. Doesn't his whole "1% doctrine" refute the claim that "we fight them there to keep them from coming here"?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Go out and get a real job for a change Howie. You make me puke.

Posted by: | July 13, 2007 10:05 AM

His shrink must have a field day with this nut who spends his entire pathetic life on this board.

Posted by: | July 13, 2007 04:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Loudumb, I see you have accepted your fate and taken to your new name. that is a sign there is hope for you. accepting the truth and your own limitations is the path to wisdom.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Too bad about that one attack since 9/10, though.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

- Since Bush announced his surge in January, violence has skyrocketed. Close to 600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since January. Military assessments suggest that "the U.S. military's plan to secure Baghdad against a rising insurgency is falling far short of its goal." A recent bombing killed over 150 in Baghdad, "one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."

- The war in Iraq has already destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world. "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks."

- The U.S. has already "lost influence" in the region. In a poll of 18 countries, the percentage of "saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world" dropped 11 points from two years ago, down to just 29 percent. Just 17 percent believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

we fight them there so they don't come here

Yet no attacks here since 9/11.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hi everyone, I'm so stupid I think posts making fun of me = posts "engaging" me. I really am stupid, huh?

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

'trotsky: why do you and other rightwingnuts insist on capitalizing the L in libs? There is no "Lib" party.'

that's one of the many way you can recognize zouk/trotsky/anon wingnut is the same person. actually there are several very clear 'signatures' that give it away -- some of them being a dozen or regular obsessions, like Harry Reid, climate change, and bill clinton. His shrink must have a field day with this nut who spends his entire pathetic life on this board.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

You presume I am a Dem because I criticize Bush - bsimon

no after your reasoned and logical response I must conclude that you are not a Dem.

colin, I am not using it as a benchmark, I am using it as a goal. After all, this is a war of attrition. we need to kill them all or leave them with no will to fight on. this is how you win a war textbook style. do you think a negotiated peace is an option? that is the other possible outcome.

Perhaps we could agree to cover all our women. Or stone adulterers. would that work for you?

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

trotsky asks a host of odd questions
"how will you convice your enemy to remain there to be killed? what if they hide in Iraq or Pakistan? What if most of our enemy is now depolyed in Iraq? will they do as you wish?"

Why would I try to convince the enemy to stay in Iraq? Is it your theory that the enemy will 'stay' in Iraq only if we stay there as well? Here's a news flash: al Qaida has been growing for the last six years, according to the CIA, and they're not based in Iraq - aQ in Iraq is a splinter group, not the real deal. No, the real al Qaida is primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they have more volunteers, more money and more training camps than ever. In fact, the head of the Dept of Homeland Security has a 'gut feeling' that we'll be attacked this summer. Doesn't that imply to you that the terrorists, in fact, will NOT stay in Iraq even if we do? It seems like they're still interested in attacking the US homeland - whether our troops are deployed overseas or not. In fact, many experts argue that our presence overseas actually inspires more volunteers for aQ and similar organizations. Anyone with a functioning brain can see that the argument that "we fight them there so they don't come here" has been illogical bunk since it was first uttered. Only a fool would state or believe such an idea.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

One more just for fun. I'll use your name to make it even funnier.

Hi, I'm a drooling moron!

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 04:03 PM

why, yes, you are and now the proof is in.


Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm not the one calling Iraq a civil war my friend. That would be "liberals" like Colin Powell, Brett Scowcroft, as well as CIA National Intelligence Estimates. Moreover, the military commanders have conceded, in testimony in front of Congress, that the VAST majority of confrontations result from insurgent factions within Iraq rather than from any outside sources. You know, the same military commanders that have also conceded, again and again and again, that there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq.

Ultimately, it's this last point that you just seem unwilling to grasp. Democrats don't advocate surrender because WE ALREADY WON THE WAR. The US military accomplished that goal a long time ago. Unfortunately for all of us, the military isn't capable of reconciling rival religious and political sects through any kind of new military strategy. That would take competent diplomacy, which is well beyond this utterly incompetent administration.

Oh, and your focus on the number if insurgents killed is ridiculous. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the military knows that's a useless benchmark when you're fight insurgents. I've listened to military commanders say as much during live testimony, right before Bush then mentions the casualty numbers in a speech. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."


i am not sure since i just make this stuff up.

destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world

because the world was so peaceful before that with no known incidents

In a poll of 18 countries

we so desperatly need to be liked - just like clinton

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

trotsky writes
"the leaders of your party are advocating immediate and complete surrender."

There's your mistake. You presume I am a Dem because I criticize Bush. Your presumption is incorrect.

Frankly, as I just said, I think immediate withdrawl is a bad idea. Its unclear whether immediate withdrawl would be not quite as bad, equally as bad or worse than staying the course, but clearly those are the two worst options, speaking broadly. Escalating the conflict by bombing Iran would trump those options, as 'worst course of action'.

No, the better plan of action is to find a way to stablize Iraq by convincing other players that they're better off helping than sitting on the sidelines. The problem is we've pissed off enough countries in the world, that people aren't quite ready to help us out at this point. One possible option could be to threaten immediate withdrawl & see how many countries will start to help stabilize the region in order to keep us there.

We likely won't ever find a good solution though, because domestic political concerns are forcing both parties to try to find a way to blame the other for what will likely be our failure in Iraq. I think Bush vetoed the last Iraq bill primarily in order to tie the Dems hands - either fund the war or take responsibility for forcing an unplanned withdrawl. Dems are still smarting from taking the blame on Vietnam, and don't want to suffer the same fate in Iraq. Instead, they're trying to force Repubs to stand by Bush & get slaughtered in 08 as a result. The Repubs, of course, are all trying to find out how to please their constituants by distancing themselves from Bush without advocating a Dem plan. You'd think this kind of environment would foster the kind of coalition building that will it will take to come up with a bipartisan solution, but sadly both sides instead seek to win the next election, consequences in Iraq be damned.

Fools, the lot of 'em.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Should we have invaded all of Southeast Asia?

Judge, are you even slower than loudumb? I clearly explained that invading every country was not proper, that is was a matter of cost/benefit, allies, economics, etc. Are you dense or silly? We promised the S vietnamese financial support and the Dem congress pulled it, despite begging from Ford. the millions of boat people and other displaced, dead and tortured freinds are your (Democrats) legacy for that decision - a cowardly political tactic. It was only money. why do you think no one trusts your party to fight a war - jimmy carter not helping much and "I tried" clinton feebly chiming in.

I must guess that you advocate not invading under any circumstance and retreating whenever the option presents itself, according to your own Lib logic.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I'm a drooling moron!

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

- Since Bush announced his surge in January, violence has skyrocketed. Close to 600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since January. Military assessments suggest that "the U.S. military's plan to secure Baghdad against a rising insurgency is falling far short of its goal." A recent bombing killed over 150 in Baghdad, "one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."

- The war in Iraq has already destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world. "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks."

- The U.S. has already "lost influence" in the region. In a poll of 18 countries, the percentage of "saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world" dropped 11 points from two years ago, down to just 29 percent. Just 17 percent believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

Yet we still get:

right, numbnuts, I'm going to engage a poster who uses a name like Loudumb. You're even dumber than you look.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:47 PM


than i look? Can you see me now? do I look as dumb as you seem?

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I advocated staying in Afghanistan and fighting the people that attacked us on 9/11

the leaders of your party are advocating immediate and complete surrender.

how will you convice your enemy to remain there to be killed? what if they hide in Iraq or Pakistan? What if most of our enemy is now depolyed in Iraq? will they do as you wish?

i don't imagine Bush is turning down any coalition partners who are willing to help. do you know any? this is just silly to suggest this is a new and great idea that will produce results. Are you talking about buddying up with Iran and syria. good luck with that.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"ever heard of the killing fields"

Yep, they were (and still are) in Cambodia, not South Vietnam. Another example (along with Laos) of regional instability caused by a US-led war. Should we have invaded all of Southeast Asia? Hey, the Soviets killed off millions of their own citizens during Stalin. And Kruschev was pretty darn threatening when he said "We will bury you." I guess we should've invaded them as well. Of course, we'd all be dead now thanks to the exchange of nuclear weapons. BUT, we'd have the moral high ground (glowing faintly from residual radioactivity) along with the shiny badge of The World's Policeman sitting on all our collective graves.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Ace - ever heard of the killing fields. It was a direct result of Libs in America pulling the plug on support for S vietnam."
----------------
Not exactly. The "killing fields" were NOT in Viet Nam but in Cambodia, a different country, one to which we had no historical commitment. The Ho Chi Minh government in Hanoi was not the Kmer Rouge. When McGovern and Goldwater tried to get us to intervene against the Kmer Rouge, they were voted down by both the parties they had recently led, because the country was tired from the long effort in Viet Nam.
----------------

Posted by: Correcting flawed narrative | July 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out."

Are you really disputing this still?
1942 - conquest of N Africa
1943 - invasion of Italy, germany's ally.

the Polish frontier was crossed in January of '44. April '44 - entered Romania and Slovakia,
September '44 entered Hungary, Soviet-Hungarian Armistice in October '44.

Posted by: don't mess with VDH | July 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

right, numbnuts, I'm going to engage a poster who uses a name like Loudumb. You're even dumber than you look.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky falls back on a strawman when he asks
"bsimon, is the war working? - as opposed to giving up and going home. how would that work?"

I did not and do not advocate 'giving up and going home'. I advocated staying in Afghanistan and fighting the people that attacked us on 9/11 - a job that still remains undone & will need to be done before this thing is 'over.' Regarding Iraq, because we cannot now go back and undo the collossal mistake of invading in the first place, I have long been in favor of doing the unthinkable: building a coalition via diplomatic efforts to get others involved in the conflict there so that 1) its not seen as a US v Islam battle and 2) we don't bear the entire burden of democratizing Iraq (if that's even possible anymore). In other words, I've been arguing for Baker-Hamilton since before the ISG delivered their report.

Regarding Trotsky's claim that
"this decision can't be made in a vacuum with domestic American elections as the driving force, as the Libs have tried to frame it."

On that I agree. I think it was foolish and shortsighted for the GOP to force Dems to vote for the war in 2002 based on the domestic political calendar, much like now it is foolish for Dems to inflict revenge on the GOP with the inverse. In neither case did/will the best policy for the US be the outcome of such politicking.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Prediction - I don't expect any more than a one liner replete with insults from a numbnuts like you. Proceed

Response -
Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I am beaten and withdraw. I have no innate intelligence with which to engage like this. I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Are two simultanously concepts too much for your little Lib brain? Maybe you could take some nuance lessons from that flunky John Kerry. Or keep chanting "no blood for oil" if that works for you simpleton.

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out."
--------------------------------------
Not exactly. There were no Soviet troops, other than POWs, west of the Soviet Union until the Red Army turned the tide of battle with the Nazis on the Eastern Front, during 1943. The Czech-Soviet Treaty was signed at the end of '43 and the Polish frontier was crossed in January of '44. April '44 - entered Romania and Slovakia,
September '44 entered Hungary, Soviet-Hungarian Armistice in October '44.
-----------------------------------------
What is the parallel to Iraq, again? I suppose 170 Red Army Divisions with 8000 tanks could open an Eastern Front for us. What a cool war game that would be.


Posted by: Correcting flawed narrative | July 13, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ace - ever heard of the killing fields. It was a direct result of Libs in America pulling the plug on support for S vietnam. those were our friends and allies left behind to fend for themselves, a heinous act you seem to wish to repeat in Iraq.

and the domino theory in Asia actually did stall communist agresssion during that time, so no the result was not the same. did you flunk history too? I don't expect any more than a one liner replete with insults from a numbnuts like you. Proceed

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

So trotsky, is it despots or natural resources we care about? you seem confused.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky: you are really stupid. (Now there's a news flash).

We lost close to 60,000 people in Vietnam, so it's hard to say we just "gave up and went home." And after losing all those people, the end result was what we would have gotten had we not lost A SINGLE ONE.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

you know you Libs have had this explained so many times I am beginning to think you are dense beyond repair.

But since I am so patient and understanding of your inability to process facts, I will try again.

colin it can't be a civil war if outsiders are doing all the agitating and sending in supplies. this old canard has been severly discredited and should be beneath you. It is an old trick of Libs to try to change the vernacular and admit new words to skew the debate - like pro choice instead of pro abortion. Like civil war instead of proxy war around civilians.

the kicking out of inspectors would have been the usual cat and mouse game as before. He would have eventually discovered that the UN and Euroope didn't have the stomach to follow through on any real effective sanctions and since the US never went to war, he would have continued the game. he seemed to not believe we would ever invade, even hiding from the fact that he didn't have what we were looking for, which would have averted the invasion.

N Korea sits on no vital resources, they may already have a short range nuke and can flood s Korea and hit the capital with a million troops in about an hour. I presume the s Koreans prefer the status quo and the cost/benefit has not much benefit. so yes, the war is about oil - a necessary commodity for the world's eceonomy. the same reason we don't go into Africa much. Iran and Syria are teetering on their own populations overthrowing them without intervention. they can't support their own economies and rely on the West for their income. From a military point of view, Iran is large and the terrain is difficult. they may crumble soon just the CCCP did. We can't invade everyone at once.

so as I said up there^, you use diplomacy, economics ansd warfare according to a cost/benefit analysis and also what other options you have and what your allies are willing to do. diplomacy was exhausted in Iraq. It may be soon with Iran although after Leibermans unanimous vote to warn Iran, they seem to be paying more attention today.

I understand the psychology of the region is different from the west. they understand force and pain. Let's show it to them.

Blarg, there are almost daily reports of the supplies and people who orginate from Iran and Syria. did you miss them all by only reading the NYT? the Senate seems to have noticed as well as the BBC. I persoanlly wouldn't invade either country. We are much better at airstrikes. Maybe that's why a third carrier group is headed that way. there are reports of at least three known terror training camps in Iran. I have no objection to bombing them. Be prepared for skyrocketing gas prices immediately afterwards as Iran tries to close the straights.

then what will the enviro demogouges whine about?

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The anonymous poster disparaging Senator Johnson is repulsive. The man suffered a life threatening illness but has since begun to recuperate, slowly but surely. B/c he hasn't been able to work OR raise money -- but will be healthy enough to work in the near future -- his COLLEAGUES have raised money on his behalf so that lack of money won't be the deciding factor regarding whether he runs again.

Seriously, that's something that you think speeks poorly of either Senator Johnson or his Colleagues? If so, you are out of your mind.

Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Yet, just a few days after the murderous rampage in Gaza that saw Hamas thugs butchering the opposition in the streets and tossing victims off tall buildings, there's Carter leaping to their defense. I would have hoped that long before this, Rosalynn would have found a nice little rest home for this senior, senile, citizen.

I do wish that when Carter finally goes to that big peanut farm in the sky, we might be spared all the predictable pomp and ceremony, the outrageous hyperbole and fulsome tributes, which will be lavished on him. If his send-off were left to me, I would simply point out that the man somehow managed to go from being the worst president in my lifetime to being the worst ex-president in American history.

Posted by: bert | July 13, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky (aka KOZ) -- any basis in fact for your last post? In point of fact, when we got into Iraq we found out that Sadaam had been so weakened even by the flawed sanctions that existed that he wasn't even in control of 1/3 of the country. There's zero evidence supporting the proposition that he had enough power to kick inspectors out again.

Regardless, you have never explained - despite my having asked you directly several times - why Iraq posed the most significant threat to the US when we invaded. Sadaam wasn't support radical islam like our allies Saudia Arabia. He didn't present anywhere near as serious a threat as N. Korea or Iran. Yet we've committed huge amounts of treasure and lives to prosecuting what has essentially become a civil war. Can you explain to me how exactly that made any sense then or makes any sense now?

Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - Ailing Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota has raised more this year than he did during the same period six years ago, even though he hasn't set foot in the Senate since suffering a life-threatening brain hemorrhage in December

too sick to vote or work, just fine for raising money. the Dem mantra.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so we "drain the swamp" by "killing the enemy". And according to you, the enemy includes Syria and Iran. So is the solution to invade those countries and kill people there? Otherwise, we aren't really killing the enemy, just the enemies' proxies.

Your insistence that we're at war with Syria and Iran is bizarre; as far as I know, even President Bush doesn't claim that. If you mean that we need to intimidate those countries with a decisive victory in Iraq, I suppose that makes some sense. But if we're already at war with them, and they're already the enemy, nothing we're doing in Iraq is helping at all. If we're at war with those countries, we need to be openly at war with them. We're a lot better at open war than fighting insurgencies, after all. Plus, it would be a good chance to free these nations from despots. Don't the Iranians deserve it as much as the Germans and "Japs"?

I don't see how your arguments for staying in Iraq don't imply that we should invade Iran. So should we? And if not, why not?

Posted by: Blarg | July 13, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

trotsky: why do you and other rightwingnuts insist on capitalizing the L in libs? There is no "Lib" party.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - you make a mistake that points out your reliance on government, like all Libs. you assume that just becuase you wish it and government is involved that it will turn out how the smart Libs planned. It doesn't, especially in war.

There are essentially two options you present - 1 fight the enemy until he is dead or 2. ignore the enemy and hope for the best. you advocate strategy #2 and claim that if we had left them alone, they would still be small, weak and over there. the indications can not be proven but the momentum was certainly toward a more agressive enemy, not a less so one.
we can't say whether our offensive actions lead to more or less enemy personel. what we can say without much doubt, is that this enemy was prepared to attack us at the opportunities it chose to set. the invasion of Iraq changed that equation to be that they must defend themselves at the point of combat we choose.

Arguing about whether there are more or less is simply not a soluable issue. the numbers are totally unknowm and the causal relationship is speculative.

What we can be sure of is that there are killers over there who wish to kill americans, wherever they may be. We make it a matter of policy to prefer volunteer professional soldiers to die rather than moms and kids on subways. so far this approach has succeeded in this goal. did you have a different goal in mind - like simply winning an election based on ignorance and propoganda. based on calling our soldiers names?

bsimon, is the war working? - as opposed to giving up and going home. how would that work? this decision can't be made in a vacuum with domestic American elections as the driving force, as the Libs have tried to frame it.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I know what the political junkies are looking at the Presidential race hardest, as we will have a new one and 2 legite primaries are going on. However, I am excited about the elections happening in my home state of North Carolina. People in general have received NC as a Republican state for Presidential races, democratic for governor's races and purple for senator races. This, however, may not all be so this year. Liddy Dole is running again, and she is in great shape for re-election. As for the Presidential election, it cannot be automatically assumed that NC goes Republican in 08. It will depend on who the Presidential candidates are. Guiliani, for example, likely wouldn't be well received here. As for NC always voting in democratic governors, that may not be the case this year either. If Mike Easley were up for re-election, it would be gold. Easley is out the door, and a democratic primary b/t Lt. Gov. Perdue and state treasurer Richard Moore is turning into a barns burner. In a recent survey, Perdue leads Moore 34%-30%, and st. senator Bill Faison has 4%. This leaves 32% of democratic voters undecided. On the Republican side, Bill Graham is the obvious nominee. He has a great statewide organization, money and an outsider's messege of fighting the gas tax, car tax and protecting private property rights. Graham will make an excellent candidate with the right messege to win this election. Plus, conservative Democrats in NC will have trouble voting for a woman governor. So if Perdue wins a tough nomination over Moore, which as a conservative I'm hoping for, Graham will likely march to the governor's mansion taking it back for the Republican's. However, if Moore wins the dem. nomination against Perdue, it will be a very close election when he faces Graham in the general. Graham has a great shot at beating him, but in the general, but it would be much tougher than would defeating Perdue. I have high expectations for Republican's in NC. I believe that the election of 08' will be a "Black" day for NC Democrats. So NC Dems., prepare to be "Nifonged".

Posted by: reason | July 13, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to point out that many posts here are waaaay off topic.

There is no shortage of Iraq articles to post on. Knock yourselves out.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - we could just give up and go home. how did that work out for you in vietnam?

the governments of Syria and Iran may not need much of a push after the money runs out.
how about we do things the old fashioned way - start by killing the enemy, demoralizing him until he doesn't want to fight anymore. this demoralizing could start with a united nation behind victory at all costs. but with the chickenhearted Reid in charge, this is too much to ask.

We are not fighting every country. We are attempting diplomacy where appropriate - Pakistan, force when needed - Iraq and financial when suitable - Syria and Iran. It is not easy. no one ever said it would be. but it is important, noble, idealistic and bold. something for Americans which will result in a giant uptick in worldwide freedom and liberty.

JimD - if we had not invaded Iraq, the UN sanctions would have broken down or further lined Saddams pockets. the inspectors would have been routed. the clamor for nasty weapons would have continued. the support of rougue killers continued. the high tempo no fly zone would have become more and more dangerous and difficult. Iran would also want nasty weapons and seek them with no reply from scared Europe. We were in a postion where do nothing was no longer an option.

And we freed a nation from a long reigning despot. that is the American way. the Iraqis deserve it as much as the French, Japs, Germans, Italians, Granadans, Panamanians, bosnians, Phillipinos, and just about every country on this planet. this is what we do. we are the good guys. Pay no attention to the NYT's lies about us.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the repeat posts. The posting tool told me the post failed.

BTW, to view my links, take the closing parenthesis off the URLs. They are broken otherwise.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Scott in PacNW - Rossi made a big mistake by pushing the recount the way he did. It makes it difficult for him to position himself as capable of governing in a bipartisan way in the upcoming election. It may not make people vote for Gregoire, but it will prevent them from casting a vote for him.

Posted by: TEL | July 13, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky writes
"the entire point made was the typical Lib talking point that there was no al queda in Iraq before we went there. VDH said that of course the enemy fills in the battlefield once the fight is engaged. do you think the jihadists respect national boundaries? they hide just across a boder where they are safe."

And the point that VDH & the President ignore is that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (aka aQ in Iraq) shares little more than a name with the bin Laden led al Qaida that attacked us on Sept 11, 2001. aQM was founded by al Zarkowi (deceased) after we invaded Iraq in 2003. Historically, al Zarkowi (sp?) was unaffiliated with bin Laden's group. When his group took the name al Qaida in Mesopotamia, it appears that they largely did so for publicity reasons - not out of fealty to the bin Laden organization. This is the point ignored by the VDH/Krauthammer/generic neocon and Bush White House.

The meta-point, that has gone largely unmade, is that, in addition to inspiring spin-off organizations like aQM, the other - original - al Qaida has grown over the last 6 years. Their leader - bin Laden - is apparently still alive. According to the CIA, his organization is growing, it has more money, more volunteers and more training camps.

So, in the end, arguing over whether al Qaida was in Iraq before we invaded or not is irrelevant. As is arguing over whether aQM is really part of aQ or not. The real question we need to be asking is: Is the Global War on Terror working? It would seem that, if al Qaida is our primary foe in that war, the answer is clearly 'No'. We've captured or killed literally thousands of terrorists over the last 6 years. Yet aQ is stronger than ever. And that is shameful performance by our political leaders.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

i see i'm now being stalked by rightwingnut ignorant coward. what a sick freak. probably hangs out at McCain campaign headquarters.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

A few points on the Washington race:

1 - Gregoire was a lackluster campaigner, but she has proven a much better governor. With a Democratic-controlled legislature, she's been able to get alot done, including health coverage for all children in the state & a badly needed dime gas tax for broken roads.

2 - Rossi may be on a listening tour, but he's not a declared candidate & he's not raising the money he needs to mount a challenge. And if he doesn't run, the state GOP admits they have no plan B. In that case, Gregoire is a lock.
(See http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-05-30/news/both-sides-agree-dino-rossi-needs-to-start-raising-money-or-get-off-the-gubernatorial-fence.php)

3 - Rossi shot himself in the foot by taking the 2004 recount to court. The judge hand-picked by the GOP mercilessly gutted Rossi's case like a fish & even subtracted two votes from his total.
(See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002319850_chelan07m.html)

If this a top 5 pick for the GOP they do not have much to pick from.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: we can just keep invading countries that don't have Al Qaeda in them, destabilize/radicalize the country enough so that Al Qaeda DOES move in and set up shop, and then claim that they were there all along and so our invasion is justified. Gosh, we're so smart!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

A few points on the Washington race:

1 - Gregoire was a lackluster campaigner, but she has proven a much better governor. With a Democratic-controlled legislature, she's been able to get alot done, including health coverage for all children in the state & a badly needed dime gas tax for broken roads.

2 - Rossi may be on a listening tour, but he's not a declared candidate & he's not raising the money he needs to mount a challenge. And if he doesn't run, the state GOP admits they have no plan B. In that case, Gregoire is a lock.
(See http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-05-30/news/both-sides-agree-dino-rossi-needs-to-start-raising-money-or-get-off-the-gubernatorial-fence.php)

3 - Rossi shot himself in the foot by taking the 2004 recount to court. The judge hand-picked by the GOP mercilessly gutted Rossi's case like a fish & even subtracted two votes from his total.
(See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002319850_chelan07m.html)

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

A few points on the Washington race:

1 - Gregoire was a lackluster campaigner, but she has proven a much better governor. With a Democratic-controlled legislature, she's been able to get alot done, including a badly needed tax increase for broken roads & health coverage for all children in the state.

2 - Rossi may be on a listening tour, but he's not a declared candidate & he's not raising the money he needs to mount a challenge. And if he doesn't run, the state GOP admits they have no plan B. In that case, Gregoire is a lock.
(See http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-05-30/news/both-sides-agree-dino-rossi-needs-to-start-raising-money-or-get-off-the-gubernatorial-fence.php)

3 - Rossi shot himself in the foot by taking the 2004 recount to court. The judge hand-picked by the GOP mercilessly gutted Rossi's case like a fish & even subtracted two votes from his total.
(See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002319850_chelan07m.html)

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 13, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

If we're fighting every country in the Middle East, how do we "drain the swamp"? Oust the governments of Iran and Syria? Just kill everyone? Continue trying to clear individual provinces in Iraq, and hope that somehow works?

Posted by: Blarg | July 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky

I was correcting what appeared to me to be an historical error. It appears that VDH and I were not really in disagreement.
The Baker-Hamilton study and several other sources confirm that al Qaeda was not in Iraq pre invasion.

I am firmly opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq. It will make things worse. However, I think the invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions and the initial occupation was managed with an incompetence that borders on criminal negligence. We need a new strategy.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Please feel free to misunderestimate the Rs again. We take Hillary very seriously.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Most historians, starting with Churchill, credit the Soviets with "ripping the guts out of the Wehrmacht" (paraphrase from Churchill).

That is not the point, that is not in contention.

the entire point made was the typical Lib talking point that there was no al queda in Iraq before we went there. VDH said that of course the enemy fills in the battlefield once the fight is engaged. do you think the jihadists respect national boundaries? they hide just across a boder where they are safe. the entire region is up for grabs. as long as we do not fight them on their level, we will have trouble. We are fighting al queda and Iran and syria et al. the claim of a civil war is just ignorant of facts. the idea that we can confine the war to a single country is silly. It will expand to other terror-friendly nations. time to drain the swamp once and for all. no more Lib appeasement.

Posted by: Trotsky | July 13, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Thompson definitely hurts Romney the most. The conservative impostor will finally be shown the door in the race."

You must not be paying attention. Thompson's waffling on abortion makes him just as much an imposter as Romney. The only true conservative - McCain - is being shown the door. And the sheep won't know which imposter to vote for until they are told. Baaaaah!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Whatever you need to say to take our money.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Thompson definitely hurts Romney the most. The conservative impostor will finally be shown the door in the race.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matthew | July 13, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

VDH

The Western Soviet Union - now largely independent nations - is also considered part of Eastern Europe.

Most historians, starting with Churchill, credit the Soviets with "ripping the guts out of the Wehrmacht" (paraphrase from Churchill).

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"After three debates - and with Giuliani continuing to lead in the national polls as well as in second-quarter fund-raising - it's a little silly to suggest that Rudy can't win the Republican nomination."

Yippee! The easiest guy to knock off gets the nod.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who knows anything about global climate change (a group that obviously excludes zouk) knows that it isn't just about warming. Adding carbon to the atmosphere doesn't uniformly make everything warmer; it makes the climate unstable. You see that Australia has the coldest June in 50 years, and that other parts of the world have undergone record heat waves in recent years, and so you assume that everything is fine?

Posted by: Blarg | July 13, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Facts unimportant if you want to smear Limbaugh
Even pollsters using misleading questions tying Limbaugh to slurs

By Jon Ham
July 13, 2007

RALEIGH -- Where the media are concerned, it's long been understood that you don't need to let the facts deter you from taking a swipe at radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. What he says doesn't matter to the media. It's what they think he said that's important.

http://carolinajournal.com/mediamangle/display_story.html?id=4181

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Just as Giuliani proved key to McCain's demise, Thompson may sink the Romney campaign. That would effectively leave a two-person race between the New Yorker and the Tennessean - with Romney perhaps siphoning just enough conservative votes to leave the pro-choice, thrice-married Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

After three debates - and with Giuliani continuing to lead in the national polls as well as in second-quarter fund-raising - it's a little silly to suggest that Rudy can't win the Republican nomination.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rudy_derailed_mccains_train_opedcolumnists_john_mcintyre.htm?page=2

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone. In 2005, Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault helpfully explained: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

What we're dealing with, apparently, is weather.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22069080-5001031,00.html

Posted by: cold wave expected in 4 months | July 13, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Jerusalem - Former Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat died of AIDS, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command Ahmed Jibril said. In an interview on Hizballah's Al-Manar television last week, Jibril said that P.A. Chairman Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen] had told him that Arafat died of AIDS, according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Posted by: silver lining | July 13, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Only Mad zouks and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 12:46 PM

wow, zouk, so now you're calling independent voters moonbats too. You must have given up on 2008, huh?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 12:55 PM


cheney on the stand? I'd rather see Cheney in an Eichmann-style glass box.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 01:24 PM

We have a new winner for most ignorant poster. He spends his entire day monitoring this site so he can add this witty repartee.

Ignorant coward will be wanting his title back. Watch for his entries in the most-innane competition. He can be vicious when his title of "most words with no content" is up for grabs. and he has the monopoly on zouk obsession so stay away from that too. you have been warned.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

the specific point was the soviets entering eastern europe, which usually is considered Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, romania, Yugoslavia. If you recall properly George Patton rushed across Germany to occupy austria and czechoslavakia. this was before the soviets entered in 1945.

Poland is not the only country in eastern europe. the soviets did not enter any country but Poland (1944) before 1945, well after the other Allies had made thier move. Dr. Hanson's point is accurate. you would be advised not to take him on for history matters.

Posted by: don't know much about history | July 13, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Let's get tom Cruise to do it."

I had someone like David Iglesias in mind.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

cheney on the stand? I'd rather see Cheney in an Eichmann-style glass box.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's get tom Cruise to do it. He is the appropriate intellectual caliber for the Lib agenda. He could jump up and down on the couch in the oval office after hillary gets in. then travolta could fly him to a global warming concert for some deep speech.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

don't know much about history is an accurate name

What did I say that wasn't historicaly true? Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, he declared war on the US in December 1941. The Soviets did discuss anti-German alliances with the French, British, Czechs and Poles at various points in 1938 and 1939. One of the main stumbling points for the Eastern European countries was allowing Soviet forces onto their territory to confront the Germans. The French and British had a low level delgation at sea en route to Russia when the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed.

Senior officers in the Wehrmacht were planning to depose Hitler if the Allies opposed the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936 and some were still planning to do that in 1938 if they faced a two front war.

A lot of this can be found in Allan Bullock's classic "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny", which I read over 30 years ago in college.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 13, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"Last, one of my closest friends, a moderate but true Republican, calls Cheney GWB's insurance policy. Nobody in his/her right mind would call for GWB's impeachment. Correct?"

Indeed. Correct order of operations:
1) Al 'Fredo' Gonzales
2) Richard 'Dick' Cheney
3) George Walker Bush

Though if 1&2 are performed simultaneously, I will not complain.

I think if you could get VP Cheney on the stand, a good prosecutor could force the "You're damn right I did" moment a la "A Few Good Men". Of course, there's chance of about zero of getting Cheney on a stand in the next 18 months.

Posted by: bsimon | July 13, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992-93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991-92), a recipient of the Eric Breindel Award for opinion journalism (2002), and an Alexander Onassis Fellow (2001) and was named alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002). He was also the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis , Maryland (2002-3). He received the Manhattan Institute's Wriston Lectureship in 2004, and the 2006 Nimitz Lectureship in Military History at UC Berkeley in 2006.

Ignorant coward on the other hans has published zero books, zero papers, has a degree from 3 bears kiddie college and spends most of his time cutting and pasting to liberal blogs. he hopes to be a paid consort for CNN someday.

Posted by: too smart for Libs | July 13, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Jim D - you are barking up the wrong tree.

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University , a professor emeritus at California University , Fresno , and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Hanson was educated at the University of California , Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980

Hanson is the author of hundreds of articles, book reviews, scholarly papers, and newspaper editorials on matters ranging from Greek, agrarian and military history to foreign affairs, domestic politics, and contemporary culture. He has written or edited 16 books,

http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html

Let's see your pedigree before you make a total fool of yourself, again.

Posted by: don't know much about history | July 13, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I would also point out on Clinton's situation that Starr asked about Monica specifically to trap Clinton into lying or admitting an affair.

The "record number of convictions" is absurd. That distinction belongs to the Nixon administration. Most of what was dredged up against Clinton appointees was for their business practices prior to appointment or lying about payments to mistresses on FBI disclosure forms. Nixon's people were convicted for abuses of their offices.

As for the deficits - unless drastic spending cuts or tax increases are implemented, they will explode in 2009 and 2010 as the full effect of the Bush tax cuts is felt. And do not quote me outyear estimates from OMB, they assume spending reductions that will never happen regardless of which party controls Congress.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

wow, zouk, so now you're calling independent voters moonbats too. You must have given up on 2008, huh?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

It was just reported that sometimes Vitter received calls from the Madams during votes.... thus now reducing him to the joke, "I told you never to call me here."

Vitter might survive a sex scandal, but once he becomes a punch line....?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 13, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

No such connections are drawn in the original study.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3353

Posted by: R's don't understand cause and effect | July 13, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

VDH - where did you study history? Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, he declared war on the United States a few days after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

Things might have turned out very differently. The Soviets were willing to sign a treaty with the French, British, and Poles to guarantee Eastern Europe against Nazi aggression. The Poles, for understandable historical reasons, were unwilling to allow Soviet troops to enter their country to fight the Germans. The French and British governments sent a pretty low level delegation by sea to negotiate with the Soviets in the summer of 1939. Picking up signals from Moscow that Stalin thought the West was hanging him out to dry, Hitler's foreign minister, von Ribbentrop, flew to Moscow and negotiated the Nazi-Soviet Pact which freed Germany from worries about a two front war - until Hitler decided to open one.

Would the Iron Curtain have fallen on Poland if the Poles and Soviets fought the Germans as allies? Given subsequent Soviet behavior, it is certainly possible. However, the Iron Curtain fell after the Soviets suffered 20,000,000 casualties in WWII and drove the Nazis back from the gates of Moscow to Berlin. The Russians entered Eastern Europe as conquerors, things might have turned out differently if they entered as allies. Furthermore, if the French, British and Russians fought Hitler together in 1939, there is a good chance that the Wehrmacht would have overthrown Hitler and sued for peace.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Only Mad zouks and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Study: Teen Birth Rate Hits Record Low Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low

Posted by: blame bush | July 13, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Study: Government Costs Half A Year Of Income Americans for Tax Reform estimates that 192 days' worth of national income is needed to pay for government spending and regulations this year

As long as its only half for nothing, it is a good deal, make that a new deal.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Muslim Congressman Compares Bush To Hitler Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., told a group of atheists earlier this week the actions of the Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks remind him of the Nazis' use of the burning of Berlin's Reichstag parliament building in 1933 to expand their power

more loony tunes Libs shooting their foolsih mouths off. Tinfoil hat fashion muct be coming back.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Though maybe the Louisiana voters are numbed to this kind of scandal, it does play a little different when the person exposed is doing something so contrary to his public persona.

Clinton's scandals didn't hurt his popularity because everyone expected it of him. Even before he entered office, his extra curricular activity had become regular fare with comedians.

With someone who holds themselves up as a paragon of strict moral values is exposed, it does play differently. Look what happend to Jimmy Swagart when he was exposed. Have you heard of him lately? Likewise the PTL guy. No one was shocked that LBJ was profane in private because it was well known. But when Nixon's tapes revealed that profanity was part of his regular vocabulary, people were shocked.

It's all a matter of whether the scandal shocks the public percention of the man.

Here in Montana, the Democratic Governor, Brian Schweixter is enjoying job approval ratings in the 60s, even after a stormy session of the legislature. Part of that, is that the Governor is widely seen as victorious over a bitterly partisan GOP majority in the House, which for the first time in the state's history, failed to pass a budget in the regular session, even though it enjoyed only a one-vote majority.

After moderate Republicans met to forge a deal, the Governor called a special session and got most of the budget he had originally proposed.

The GOP is reeling. No one has announced for the GOP governor nomination and it's widely expected it's time for the proverbial "sacrificial lamb" from the GOP.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 13, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Wrong again, in a recent poll of independent voters, the most corrupt president of modern times was....ta-da...George Bush.

so you Libs think that a poll of fellow moonbats makes it so. how about an objective result, number of convictions for example. that would not play well with the moonbat squad on this blog. too much fact mixed in with my beliefs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 13, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Report: Al-Qaeda Bakes Little Boys A reporter embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq reports a government official has recounted a new atrocity by al-Qaida: several instances in which terrorists baked a young boy, then invited his family to lunch with the victim as the main course

Let them have the coutry, we have important work to do in Darfur.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Wrong again, in a recent poll of independent voters, the most corrupt president of modern times was....ta-da...George Bush.

All-
As for Vitter, I expect the Bible Belt types to throw him out. Other politician's have had "sexual problems", the photo's of Kennedy in a rowboat engaged in "offshore drilling" come to mind, and they haven't harmed him much. Vitters problem is that he ran on a platform of "morality" - family values and overly smug Bible Belt chasty belts for the women folk. We expect the Kennedy's to lack morals. As for Bill Clinton, forget it. He is a lovably immature guy with a teflon skin. He admitted he got into the Lewenski affair becasue it was right there in front of him. Most men would do that, especially most middle aged men. Clinton's affair amounted to nothing then, and amunts to less than that now.

Posted by: MikeB | July 13, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

new poll...

'Just 19% of American voters believe that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq was a success.'

how low can it go before zouk and bush's dog barney are the only ones left?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the missing $10K from cold cash Jefferson was spent on hookers the first night he got it?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

' Like the fact that bill clinton was the most corrupt politician in modern times. Like the fact that Dems spend our money like crazy.'

more laughable assertions from the moron/mental patient zouk. a tragic case, really.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Do you all really think Vitter will bring Jindal down? If so yall are on some good stuff. This is Louisiana, this scandal is weak compared to others we have seen. Governor Jindal is well on his way to the mansion in Baton Rouge.

Posted by: Ragin Cajun | July 13, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Random thoughts after seeing this morning's random posts:

tabloid journalism has infected the political discourse - I am so old I do not give a hoot for knowing about the consenting private adult sex lives of Vitter or Clinton or anybody else. And I recognize the lying and "hypocrisy" of the outed to be the informal requirement of having one's privacy disturbed.

Clinton did not commit perjury by lying at his deposition, he committed the federal misdemeanor of "false swearing", because he lied about an arguably immaterial fact - a future bad act [Lewinsky was after Jones; if Clinton lied in a Lewinsky deposition about Jones that could be lying about a material fact - at trial, later bad acts do not come into evidence and prior bad acts are limited as to admissibility, but PRIORS could come in under many circumstances to prove a common course of conduct].
Thought y'all would want to know that.

A President has the power to pardon and it is his power alone. That means others can complain of suspected abuse of that power, but unless Congress wants to either censure or impeach this President there is not any point in holding hearings about the Libby commutation. Just wastes more of our time on Earth.

Last, one of my closest friends, a moderate but true Republican, calls Cheney GWB's insurance policy. Nobody in his/her right mind would call for GWB's impeachment. Correct?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 13, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't really expect you Lib apologists to get it. i know you have a long history of ignoring uncomfortable facts. Like the fact that bill clinton was the most corrupt politician in modern times. Like the fact that Dems spend our money like crazy. Like the fact that big government is inefficient and wasteful, regardless of underlying party affiliation. Like the fact that all Pols care about is getting re-elected - forget the troops if it helps me. Like the fact that global warming is far from settled, that is just an attempt to shut off debate. How much will your plan cost? is that settled too? Like the fact that SS in its present form is untenable and you Libs won't touch it for fear of losing an election. Like the fact that the elementary education system in this country is broken, but you can't wean off the union money so you won't lift a finger to correct it. Like the fact that most Americans have superb health care, you wish to wreck it for everyone to cover the margins. Like the fact that you wish to set prices for labor, energy, health care, etc. despite the long history of failure of this policy of intervention. Like the fact that you have no vision whatsoever on foreign policy, taking the easy way out to garner cheap votes by uninformed MSM viewers who are subject to extereme bias in so-called news reporting.

If you wonder why these issues keep coming up, day after day, week after week, it is because your elected Reps in congress do nothing, think nothing, create nothing and eventually know nothing. surprised?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 13, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The celebrated City Journal has this to offer:

"There was a Pentagon postwar plan to stabilize the country, but it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war in which the majority of Baathists and their terrorist allies fled into the shadows to await a more opportune time to reemerge, under quite different rules of engagement."

Apparently, it is the fault of the Baathists for not conducting their insurgency in an easily predictable way. Looked at another way, this is not journalism. It's justification, and not even done that well.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I read this Krauthammer column, and gosh am I confused. He seems to be saying that it's a good thing that after four years we've finally learned how to combat an insurgent enemy (Al Qaeda in Iraq) that wasn't there when we invaded in the first place and that this means we don't have to worry anymore about the whole civil war/ethnic conflict/complete fu**up of a central government stuff. Also, if we pulled out troops it would say bad things about General Petraeus and that's totally not fair. No, seriously.

Posted by: Linda | July 13, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, thank you for the link to an editorial. The links posted above are to news stories published in the Post and the NY Times - 2 of the premier news sources in the world, despite the opinions of those who wish to be able to dictate the tone and content of the news they read.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

IENNA, Austria - U.N. nuclear inspectors banned earlier this year by Iran from visiting a heavy water reactor will now be allowed to inspect it before the end of July, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a further sign of compromise, the IAEA said the country also agreed to answer questions on past experiments that the international community fears could be linked to a weapons program.

The IAEA -- the U.N.'s nuclear monitor -- said Iran promised the concessions, including the inspection of the Arak reactor, in a meeting this week between its officials and a senior delegation from the Vienna-based agency.

Any Iranian decision to cooperate with the agency could weaken a push by the United States and Western allies on the council to impose new U.N. sanctions -- even if Iran continues to defy the council's main demand that it freeze uranium enrichment.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that Iran has scaled back its uranium enrichment program, suggesting a new willingness from the government to resolve the international deadlock.

Posted by: good news on iran | July 13, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Half Truth Central | July 13, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

By their unanimous vote for Senator Webb's amendment to give our troops a break between hellish deployments, the Democrats in Congress clearly sense the moral hazard of asking our soldiers to pay an undeserved penalty for the blunders of their leaders. The President and his Senate supporters showed their true colors in providing (with Lieberman) the 41 votes needed to obstruct Webb's proposal, the only genuine "support the troops" measure before them.

Yet even that is not as shameful as having deliberately misidentified and conflated our multiple opponents in Iraq as the same al Qaeda that flew planes into the Twin Towers, as the President did again Thursday.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

VDH, what color is the sun on your planet?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

'are watching closely to see whether America will betray its principles in Iraq.'

are america's 'principles' letting thousands of young americans be slaughtered in a war for oil? i don't think so.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-07-12vdh.html
Just so easy to tear down Lib talking points with facts. Go here for the rest.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

My mistake: "in sole control of government from 01.20.03 to 01.20.07."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Zouk, the president DOES have direct control over the tax and spending policies he advocates, and thus at least some over the deficit. And you say "the bad news is you get Katrina response and VA medical care. you get SS returns on your money and DofEd performance," forgetting that YOUR PARTY has been in sole control of government since 2003, and in control of the presidency since 2001. If government did not work in its response to Katrina, and in the maintenance of the quality of VA medical services, etc. you have only the neocons in office to blame. Political decisions since 2003 have been made with reference first to ideology, second to patronage, and only third or fourth to efficacy and economy.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 13, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

8. "Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening. . . . To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war."

But Bush did go to the United Nations, which, had it enforced its own resolutions, might have prevented the war. In fact, the Bush administration's engagement with the UN contrasts sharply with President Clinton's snub of that organization during the U.S.-led bombing of the Balkans--unleashed, unlike Iraq, without Congressional approval. The Times also neglects to mention that the UN was knee-deep in the mess of its cash cow Iraq, from its appeasement of the genocidal Hussein regime to its graft-ridden, $50 billion oil-for-food scandal, reaching the highest echelons of Kofi Annan's UN administration.

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

7. "Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

"This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops."

The Times raises the old charge that if we weren't in Iraq, neither would be al-Qaida--more of whose members we have killed in Iraq than anywhere else. In 1944, Japan had relatively few soldiers in Okinawa; when the Japanese learned that we planned to invade in 1945, they increased their forces there. Did the subsequent carnage--four times the number of U.S. dead as in Iraq, by the way, in one-sixteenth the time--prove our actions ill considered? Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out. Did the resulting Iron Curtain mean that it was a mistake to deter German aggression?

And if the Times sees the war in Afghanistan as so important, why didn't it support an all-out war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, as it apparently does now, when we were solely in Afghanistan?

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The Katrina response was the fault of the "Libs"? I didn't know they controlled the federal government at the time. Or that the Libs controlled the VA system, which is also run by the federal government. (More accurately, it's run by a private company, since it was outsourced during the Bush administration.)

Apparently everything's the fault of the Libs, even if it happened while the Republicans had complete control of the federal government. Those damn Libs are sneaky!

Posted by: Blarg | July 13, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

4. "Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles."

The military is stretched, but hardly broken, despite having tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, the Balkans, Germany, and Italy, years--and decades--after we removed dictatorships by force and began efforts to establish democracies in those once-frightening places. As for whether Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror: al-Qaida bigwig Ayman al-Zawahiri, like George W. Bush, has said that Iraq is the primary front in his efforts to attack the United States and its interests--and he often despairs about the progress of jihad there. Our enemies, like al-Qaida, Iran, and Syria, as well as opportunistic neutrals like China and Russia, are watching closely to see whether America will betray its principles in Iraq.

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

3. "While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs--after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost."

Of course there were breakthroughs: most notably, millions of Iraqis' risking their lives to vote. An elected government remains in power, under a constitution far more liberal than any other in the Arab Middle East. In the region at large, Libya, following the war, gave up its advanced arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; Syria fled Lebanon; A.Q. Khan's nuclear ring was shut down. And despite the efforts of Iran, Syria, and Sunni extremists in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, a plurality of Iraqis still prefer the chaotic and dangerous present to the sure methodical slaughter of their recent Saddamite past.

The Times wonders what Bush's cause was. Easy to explain, if not easy to achieve: to help foster a constitutional government in the place of a genocidal regime that had engaged in a de facto war with the United States since 1991, and harbored or subsidized terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, at least one plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida affiliates in Kurdistan, and suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. It was a bold attempt to break with the West's previous practices, both liberal (appeasement of terrorists) and conservative (doing business with Saddam, selling arms to Iran, and overlooking the House of Saud's funding of terrorists).

Is that cause in fact "lost"? The vast majority of 160,000 troops in harm's way don't think so--despite a home front where U.S. senators have publicly compared them with Nazis, Stalinists, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and Saddam Hussein's jailers, and where the media's Iraqi narrative has focused obsessively on Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and serial leaks of classified information, with little interest in the horrific nature of the Islamists in Iraq or the courageous efforts of many Iraqis to stop them.

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

2. "Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward."

We'll get to the war's "sufficient cause," but first let's address the other two charges that the Times levels here against President Bush. Both houses of Congress voted for 23 writs authorizing the war with Iraq--a post-9/11 confirmation of the official policy of regime change in Iraq that President Clinton originated. Supporters of the war included 70 percent of the American public in April 2003; the majority of NATO members; a coalition with more participants than the United Nations alliance had in the Korean War; and a host of politicians and pundits as diverse as Joe Biden, William F. Buckley, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Francis Fukuyama, Kenneth Pollack, Harry Reid, Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman, and George Will.

And there was a Pentagon postwar plan to stabilize the country, but it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war in which the majority of Baathists and their terrorist allies fled into the shadows to await a more opportune time to reemerge, under quite different rules of engagement.

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

On July 8, the New York Times ran an historic editorial entitled "The Road Home," demanding an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. It is rare that an editorial gets almost everything wrong, but "The Road Home" pulls it off. Consider, point by point, its confused--and immoral--defeatism.

1. "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

Rarely in military history has an "orderly" withdrawal followed a theater-sized defeat and the flight of several divisions. Abruptly leaving Iraq would be a logistical and humanitarian catastrophe. And when scenes of carnage begin appearing on TV screens here about latte time, will the Times then call for "humanitarian" action?

Posted by: VDH | July 13, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Colin, of course everyone (at least all Libs) unbderstand that the President himself sets the deficit every year according to his own whims. Lib pols are just that powerful. In fact, they can run any size government doing any task whatsoever flawlessly. and they want to do more since they are so adept at it. the good news is it will only cost you everything you have. the bad news is you get Katrina response and VA medical care. you get SS returns on your money and DofEd performance. whooppeee.

Can someone phone Jimmy Carter and find out how much gas is suppossed to cost today. I think I got ripped off by the three gas stations on the corner. how did they all know to charge within one cent of each other? I don't get it. Kruggman, someone is lying. Please inform.

Posted by: DimDem | July 13, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202307.html?hpid=topnews

"Deadlocked Sunni, Shiite Factions Block Political Progress, Iraqis Say

BAGHDAD, July 12 -- Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201479.html

Commuting Libby's Sentence 'Fair,' Bush Says
For First Time, President Acknowledges Role of an Administration Official in Leak of CIA Operative

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A05

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that "somebody" in his administration leaked the name of an undercover intelligence officer but declined to say whether he was disappointed in such an action and contended that it is time to move on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert

Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 13, 2007

BAGHDAD, July 12 -- In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home."

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.


this is too easy.

Posted by: those pesky facts and news reports | July 13, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

DDS, attacking the toll road and daylight saving time is exactly how the Dems win in IN. I don't know where you're from but down here in southern IN we're mad as heck about DST and Joe Donnelly won in the second at least partially because of the toll road. I'm not sold on Schellinger, but or that it will be a barn-burner but this is a pick-up opportunity.

Posted by: Zach | July 13, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

A Democrat for IN governor whose last name isn't Bayh? No way... not gonna happen, not in that state.

Posted by: HoosierBornDC | July 13, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Everyone, we may have been wrong in expecting CC to rein in Zouk. But never fear...

http://www.doyourownpestcontrol.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

that zouk, always putting a damper on the moonbat mutual admiration society with those pesky facts and news reports. how is a Lib supposed to win an election if the truth keeps getting out?

CC can you stop him, and while you're at it, any critics of our socialist policies?

Posted by: DimDem | July 13, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Apparently there are more Vitter hooker eruptions on the horizon. This POS is going to bring down GOP golden boy Bobby Jindal with him. LOL

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

We've had an extraordinary week of leaked candor about the catastrophic state of US foreign policy under the Bush/Cheney regime, predictably followed by Presidential denials that al Qaeda is back and blatant propaganda that we're making "satisfactory" progress on the few Iraq benchmarks that are virtually meaningless. The White House, which has always confused inflexible standards and testing with genuine education and wisdom, has been reduced to giving out report cards on itself that translate to "improvement needed" on everything that really matters.

But the reality based assessments dominated the news. First it was the intelligence community's pre-denial assessment that al Qaeda has been allowed to regroup along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to become as threatening as ever, both for Europe and possibly the US. The obvious conclusion is that the President's six year global war on terror is not only an abject failure but a growing threat to our security.

Then there were the pre-spin reports about the virtual absence of any meaningful progress in achieving the objectives of the US troop surge. And Thursday Bob Woodward released his history of intelligence briefings the CIA gave the Iraq Study Group last fall, briefings that revealed what Condi Rice described as "the dark assessment" that security conditions had so deteriorated as to be "irretrievable," while the al Maliki government was so inherently ineffectual, that there was virtually nothing the US could do to make things turn out right in Iraq. That sobering assessment was reaffirmed this week by Stephen Biddle's op-ed explaining why the only realistic but unavoidably awful choices had narrowed to "go deep" or "get out," since staying the course had become increasingly untenable and morally dubious.

We are left with the unspoken and unspeakable conclusion that the real rationale for keeping so many U.S. soldiers in harm's way - in the middle of Iraq's irreconcilable sectarian and civil wars -- is that they serve as our national punishment for the inexcusable blunder our government made in invading and occupying Iraq and opening this pandora's box in the first place.

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Tom Edsall has a new article up gaming out whether there's any strategic options left for McCain to salvage his collapsing campaign. Tom's verdict is that there's one high-stakes hail mary approach: reinventing himself as the anti-Bush Republican -- come out against the Republicans' culture of corruption, K Street and the rest, preach against the sea of red ink and most of all let Bush have it on the colossal fiasco he's made of Iraq and argue "that conditions in Iraq are so terrible that withdrawal is now the only reasonable alternative; that resources and taxpayer dollars should be put into Afghanistan and into supporting anti-terrorist activities in Pakistan, Africa and South Asia - not to mention an infusion of cash into domestic security."

Posted by: Linda | July 13, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm, we should celebrate b/c the deficit for THIS YEAR is smaller than the record deficits the administration ran up in preceding years? Stated otherewise, we should be happy because the national debt is GROWING at a slower pace than the last few years? By that logic, I should be happy if my credit card debt was growing at a slower rate, even though it means I would NEVER PAY IT OFF.

Strange logic for a supporter of the party of fiscal "responsibility." Especially since Bush inherited surpluses when he took office...

Posted by: Colin | July 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Times-Picayune interviews the hooker Vitter went to when he was back in the district.

And a little more digging finds that when Vitter was in DC he made some of his calls during roll call votes in the House. (This is when he was a rep.)

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

jeff must be another one of those posters who is new to this country -- he doesn't understand that there is just a bit of difference between a criminal trial and impeachment proceedings.

best of luck in your civics class, Achmed! or Jose, or Ming, or whatever your name is. Welcome to the US!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

In the view of some members of Congress -- and not just Democrats -- the time has long passed for the Iraqis to show that they can parlay U.S.-led military efforts into progress on the political front.

''That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately,'' Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said after the White House delivered its war report to Congress on Thursday. Warner was the author of legislation requiring the report.

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"The idiot poster is zouk. Can't you tell by the usual obsessions? The same posts all day, every day. I honestly think he's either in a mental hospital or works for the RNC -- or both."

Not sure if this recycled garbage is all the work of one person. I agree that somewhere a mental hospital turns on it's internet access at a specific time of the day. Or more likely a public library with free internet access opens its doors. Hard to say what man-made phenomenon triggers this smelly deluge of half truths and talking points.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Oh good, a copy-and-paste duel. That always makes for good conversation.

Krauthammer's article (reposted, without link as usual, by "chuck K") is laughable. After four years, we finally know what works? Is that almost an admission that we were running this war wrong for 4 years? Of course, saying that at the time would have been unpatriotic, but it's okay in retrospect, right?

Sunni insurgent groups are now fighting along US forces. That's a win? I thought the goal was to eliminate the insurgency, not to cooperate with it against a common enemy. I'm sure those Sunni insurgents are now our friends forever, and we never need to worry about these heavily-armed warlord-run paramilitary groups ever again.

The only way to claim we're achieving our goals in Iraq is to lower our standards until they meet reality. We don't want a peaceful country with a strong central government. It's okay for there to be ethnic tribal armies who reject US and Iraqi governmental authority, as long as they aren't trying to kill us for the moment. We're never failing in Iraq, because the bar for success is so low.

Posted by: Blarg | July 13, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Exxon Mobil Corp. became the first publicly traded company valued above half a trillion dollars Thursday.

Shares of Exxon Mobil rose 2.7 percent Thursday pushing the market capitalization of the Irving-based company to $504.9 billion -- more than the annual economic output of Argentina, Finland and Kazakhstan combined. A 40 percent gain in the past 12 months made Exxon Mobil 26 percent bigger than General Electric Co., the next largest U.S. company.

Exxon Mobil shares, which ended Thursday at $89.62 on the New York Stock Exchange, have been the biggest contributor to the Standard and Poor's 500 Index's rally. Exxon Mobil now accounts for 3.7 percent of the S&P 500's market value.

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The Washington governor's race is going to be a lot closer than most people imagine. Christine Gregoire is pretty much in the pocket of the public employee unions in Washington and, together, they have been responsible for a whole series of expensive boondoggles that have angred Washington voters outside of the immediate Seattle area. One is the Puget Sound rapid rail system which is sucking up tax dollars with nothing to show for it. Beyond that, there is a lot of discontent about state employees receiving huge pay increases (more than 12%) while Washington's economy is overall stagnent. Gregoire will likely get the Seattle vote and the public employee vote but there is enough discontent with the Gregoire-public employee-Seattle triad that Rossi has a real chance of defeating her. Now, I don't know squat about Rossi or his stand on the issues (I live in Oregon), but unless he can be portrayed as a "Bushie", Gregoire is in real trouble.

Posted by: MikeB | July 13, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

He's on already, Loudon -- can't you tell by the onslaught of idiotic rants against dems? he came on at 11 today. I guess his attendents put him in the computer room early.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Hey Zouk (and everyone else):

2004 - $413 billion
2005 - $318 billion
2006 - $248 billion
2007 - $205 billion

OK, three plus eight, plus eight plus five = twenty-four, carry the two; plus one-one-four = sixty, plus two, eighty - so eighty four; and four hundred, three hundred, two hundred, two hundred = eleven hundred; so eleven hundred eighty-four. Times one billion...

$1,184,000,000,000.00

Look at the number, everyone, and realize that it represents the INCREASE in the national debt OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. We have Mr. Bush's tax and war policies to thank. Now try to assess whether or not we have gotten our money's worth. I know what my answer is.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 13, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

WaPo:

Despite failure in Iraq, President Holds Firm

NYTImes:

A Firm Bush Tells Congress Not to Dictate Policy on War

--Got It? Bush is 'Firm'. Manly. Captain Codpiece. And along with him, the whole R party. Broad shoulders. Whiff of Aqua Velva. Cigar Smoke.That's the national media narrative. It's truly too bad our national press corpse is 1000 typing monkeys.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

43 minutes to Zouk time!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

In fact, every single Democratic senator voted "not guilty" at Clinton's impeachment. That's right; every single one of them voted "not guilty." Perjury did not seem important to them in Clinton's case. So what gives with Libby's? It can't be that they desperately want to hurt Bush in any way possible, can it?

But Libby was found to have lied under oath and to have obstructed justice. Likewise, during the deposition of the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Yet based on contrary evidence (the now infamous blue dress) Clinton's sworn testimony proved false. Put simply, a sitting president -- the man charged with enforcing our laws -- knowingly lied under oath and obstructed justice. On the Left, there is plenty of outrage now -- no doubt about it -- but where was the outrage concerning one of their own? The Democrats in the Senate, in effect if not in actual terminology, pardoned Clinton for his own perjury.

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=724&NewsID=821529&CategoryID=16783&show=localnews&om=1

Posted by: jeff | July 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an "astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.

The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province -- just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar -- where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades has turned against al-Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.

Posted by: chuck K | July 13, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, July 12 -- In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home."

....
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

Posted by: the lies never stop | July 13, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Moore called the report "biased" and asked, "Why don't you tell the truth the American people?" Moore thinks his "truth" is unquestionable, so anything different must be "bias." His tantrum echoed the behavior of former president Bill Clinton in last year's infamous interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." Both Moore and Clinton's calibrated and faux-angry responses to legitimate questions were unhinged.

Wallace, at the request of many viewers, asked Clinton why he didn't do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda "out of business" when he was president. The inquiry produced an outburst of irritation and lashing out against Fox, conservatives and "all the right wingers who are attacking me now." Clinton was at his best: he spun Wallace's questions to make himself look persecuted . Wallace replied, "I'm asking you this in good faith sir, because it's on people's minds." But if it makes him look bad, Clinton doesn't care. And if it makes Fox look bad, Clinton is -- in poker terms -- "all in."

Wallace let Clinton respond endlessly and belittle him in the process with finger pointing, knee jabbing, and condescension ("you've got that little smirk on your face, you think you're so clever") and claiming Wallace "didn't format it in an honest way." Clinton revels in the spin of most MSM (who buried and downplayed his incriminating actions in office) but flounders in the face of fair and balanced coverage that dares to point the finger at flawed leadership. When it comes to bin Laden, Clinton knows he carries some responsibility -- he successfully rerouted that focus -- an issues tactic he's perfected for years.

Had Clinton stopped complaining and simply answered Wallace's question, the interview would have proceeded to other matters. Instead, even as Wallace attempted on several occasions to change the subject, Clinton orchestrated an elaborate scene in which Fox played the bully to Clinton's victim persona.

Moore and Clinton are masters of media manipulation, who have coined themselves casualties of bias. By projecting their faults on the media, they manufacture a different focus.

The public has a right to know why Clinton didn't catch bin Laden and when "facts" in Moore's documentary aren't true. Moore and Clinton's reactions prod the public to view skepticism and balance as biased attack. Clinton even called it "a conservative hit job" and that the public questions about his role in not stopping bin Laden were there due to "a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression." Plenty of conservatives have been the benefactors of "liberal hit jobs" on NBC, ABC, and CBS but it happens so often, usually no one notices.

Moore and Clinton cried "bias" but they didn't want it fair. To them, bias is anything that doesn't accept everything they say


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21512

Posted by: lib liars | July 13, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The NYT fronts word that, through the power of loopholes, partners at the Blackstone Group will avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75 billion the company made during its initial public offering last month. Although the partners will pay $533 million in taxes, they will get it back in the long run, and, in fact, receive $200 million more from the government. "These guys have figured out how to turn paying taxes into an annuity," a tax lawyer tells the paper and adds that this is a perfect example of why the current debate in Washington over "what tax rate to pay misses the big picture."

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

In other Iraq news, the papers goes inside with clashes between Shiite militias and the American military that left at least 16 people dead (19 says the WSJ), including two Iraqis who worked for Reuters. The NYT is the most direct and says that it appears U.S. troops killed the journalists. A photographer tells the NYT that "it looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area." The WP says two children were also among the dead.

Posted by: - | July 13, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Shellinger is supported by a weak (subject to attack either on crime-prevention or property taxes) Democratic pseudo-establishment out of Indianapolis. He has no political experience and must rely on people like Bart Peterson (presumably not running for Governor because he knows he would lose) for advice. Daniels could be defeated, but attacking the Toll Road and Daylight Savings Time won't cut it and will make the Democrats looks pathetically retrograde. Mitch is the media's man, and there is no barnburner in store.

Posted by: DDS | July 13, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

You may recall that Greenwald also conducted a recent internet campaign against a planned Fox News presidential debate in Nevada. He's also credited with pushing top-tier Democrats to pull out of a Congressional Black Caucus debate. Fox News has to pay, according the left, for allowing opposing points of view on global warming and other tenets of the left. You really have to love the angle on this. Greenwald and his crowd want to have debates of "their" candidates on news channels that nobody watches, not on the news channel with three times the viewers of either of the other news channels. They are afraid of the free market of ideas.

Look at the pattern--the silencing of opposing points of view. For arguments sake, let's assume that Fox News is the Right Wing Arm of the Right Wing Nuts of America. Fox News is not looking to silence the opposition through boycott or through governmental means, they are looking to obliterate the opposition through ratings, bringing viewers to their network by providing what viewers seem to want. They employ a free market solution.

The right competes in the marketplace of ideas and is willing to have their ideas challenged. When lefties controlled all the news magazines, righties came up with their own magazines and competed. When the mainstream news programs wanted to limit coverage to the "Big 3" networks, along came CNN and then the Fox News Channel to add to the discussion, not to limit it. When AM radio was about to die on the vine, Rush Limbaugh came along to add conservative talk to the mix and it filled a void that led to a dominance of conservative thought on talk radio. The dominance results from the fact that we, the talk radio community, won that battle in the marketplace.

Those of us on the right and those who love free speech seek to expand dialog and the left with the help of people like Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films seek to suppress discussion. They know they can't win with facts and ideas, so they want to shut down the debate

Posted by: losers in the marketplace of ideas | July 13, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the NYT moves to the front page a look at Bush's often-repeated assertion that those responsible for much of the violence in Iraq are the same as "the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." The statement is dubious at best, since al-Qaida in Iraq didn't exist in 2001 and its relationship with the larger terrorist network is far from clear. Besides, as an expert tells the Times, it's evident that "al-Qaida, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Despite the media-crafted image of the GOP as home to hypocritical religious demagogues, it is the Democratic Party in which more snake oil peddling faith healers find a home, albeit disguised as non-religious in nature. Sadly, the Left's starry-eyed faith in demagogues like Gore, the Clintons, Edwards, John Fraud Kerry, and yes, even Obama (the White Man's Hope for Absolution of Guilt At Last), is destined to be disappointed, time and time again. Politicians are but human, and may be even more fallible than most of us. They have far more opportunities to be misled and corrupted, after all. Power, as Lord Acton said so well, tends to corrupt.


So in the upshot America has lucked out again. Al Gore was not president for the last eight years. Now there's something to be thankful for

Posted by: James Lewis | July 13, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The idiot poster is zouk. Can't you tell by the usual obsessions? The same posts all day, every day. I honestly think he's either in a mental hospital or works for the RNC -- or both.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The Kucinich for President Campaign is expressing "outrage" over rival candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who "were overheard collaborating on a strategy to eliminate other Democratic candidates from future debates and forums."

Top campaign officials for Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich pointed to reports that Fox News Channel microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances.

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into Clinton's ear following a presidential forum Thursday in Detroit hosted by the NAACP.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said.

Clinton also said she thought that representatives of her campaign and Edwards' had already tried to limit the debates, and "we've gotta get back to it," the Associated Press quoted her as saying.

Posted by: free speech for us only | July 13, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Censure is too good for Murtha on this alone," Hughes said, even without considering such things in his past as questions regarding his war hero status and involvement in the Abscam scandal.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The following May, Murtha -- who by then was a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq -- said at a news conference that sources in the military had told him an internal investigation would expose serious misconduct.

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said, before calling for U.S. troops to be "redeployed" out of the country.

"It's too late for an apology," Darryl Sharratt of Canonsburg, Pa., told Cybercast News Service after the hearing officer in the case, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, released an 18-page report recommending that all charges against Sharratt's son, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, be dismissed because his actions "were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force."

Posted by: support the troops, guffaw! | July 13, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"Loved your randy Newman refernce, Judge. He should write lyrics for the whole party. Nobody does it better... the lyrics of 'We're rednecks' ... comes to mind, rmember?"

Drindl: aside from 'Louisiana' and 'Marie,' 'Rednecks' is one of my favorites even though the lyrics are still not printable. I think 'Louisiana' would be a great choice in Boasso a campaign ad stressing the complete failure of the Bush administration to make good on it's promises to rebuild NO.

In response to the idiot poster:
The Republicans who controlled Congress SPENT with abandon on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Not to mention that the Republicans continue to threaten the existence of Medicare and Social Security by pushing for ill-conceived (i.e., stupid) privatization schemes (and we've had our fill of stupid from this President) designed to - you guessed it - benefit millionaires and billionaires. The GOP should just change its name to M&B as it would be a much more honest description of their TRUE base, the one that calls the shots on Capitol Hill.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Democrats, meanwhile, have given up even pretending that a congressionally imposed bug-out won't produce a bloodbath on the scale of the nightmare inflicted on South Vietnam and Cambodia the last time they forced an American president to pull out of an unpopular war.

Indeed, they understand full well what would happen - but don't care.

That a growing number of Republicans are more concerned with their own re-election than with the consequences of a forced withdrawal is tragic.

Years from now, the president predicted yesterday, when people "visit old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics."

Will any of the Capitol Hill surrender lobby be able to say the same?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132007/postopinion/editorials/the_surrender_lobby_editorials_.htm

Posted by: surrender dorothy | July 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Now is not the moment to become complacent about the deficit. The Democrats who control Congress are readying to spend with abandon on everything from government-funded health care for the children of the upper-middle-class to pork gussied up as "homeland security" grants. Not to mention that the Democrats are obstacles to confronting longer-term threats to budget balance, such as spending on Medicare and Social Security.

2004 - $413 billion
2005 - $318 billion
2006 - $248 billion
2007 - $205 billion

The New York Times's Paul Krugman, in December, wrote that President Bush "plunged the budget deep into deficit by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains even as he took the country into a disastrous war." Senator Clinton went to the Senate floor in February of this year to speak of the "fiscal recklessness" of the Bush administration, which she charged had contributed to "record deficits." In March, Senator Schumer, who is now the chairman of Congress's Joint Economic Committee, spoke of "budget excesses of the past six years" that have brought us "a mounting debt to the rest of the world."

But as the shrinking figures above show, in fact the deficit is shrinking.

http://www.nysun.com/article/58341

Posted by: dems don't do numbers | July 13, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse


'Long before the existence of Fox News, Roger Ailes was a media adviser to Nixon--and the Smoking Gun has a 1970 memo from the former Republican consultant telling Haldeman about a sound problem at a recent Nixon speech:'


It all goes back to Nixon. Cheney, Wolfowitz, fox news -- the whole neocon crew.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Uh, oh... just caught this about Fred:

'Remember the flat denial from Fred Thompson's camp about that story he'd done lobbying work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association? It's now, uh, inoperative:

"Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn't remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary," says Politico.'

So he's another liar and flipflopper, eh? So much for the 'straight-shooting; GOP. What a bunch of flippin' weasels. Not only that, he's postponed his announcement again. Not until August, or maybe September. Cold feet? Not terribly decisive, is he?

Loved your randy Newman refernce, Judge. He should write lyrics for the whole party. Nobody does it better... the lyrics of 'We're rednecks' ... comes to mind, rmember?

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I think this line is fairly spot on. I think Kentucky is the Dem's race to loose, and I don't see any signs of that happening. Vitter's problems could become news for Jindal if Boasso can turn it into a theme of broader Republican immorality. I never thought Indiana would be such a battleground for Dems, but with three pick ups in the House last cycle, one more potential this cycle and a weak Gov, the 08 implications are growing. Missouri was close in 04, Kerry didn't even play right up until the end and it was still fairly close. Missouri will be close in 2008, there's no sign of it cooling down. Washington might be misplaced. While the race will be close, I think the Dem lean of the state in a Presidential year in which the Dem will undoubtably carry Washington, it will be tough for any Republican, even Rossi, to win.

Posted by: Roch poligeek | July 13, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Seems like he's not afraid to say that he's a Democrat in a southern state. I like that.

Posted by: Marve | July 13, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.'

The House votes to bring home the troops at exactly the time our generals say we have to, because they can't sustain the numbers beyond that. But does the lazy, rightwing coddled corporate press report this? NO.

And bush makes the most inane, truly stupid remarks like this,

"This is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people."

As if it were different than any other war, any time in history. Do they put it in context? NO.

'The president said it is not Congress' job to make decisions regarding the war.'

Guess he hasn't read the Constitution. Of course, it's a lot harder than 'My Pet Goat'. Does the press put that comment in context? NO.

'Despite failures in Iraq, president holds firm' reports the truly pathetic WaPo, holding up the 'republicans firm and manly' narrative. and worst of all, the totally rightwing poodle, howie kurtz, spouts this unbelievably partisan drivel..

'The press declared war on the war yesterday.

I can reach no other conclusion after watching the president's press conference.

With each successive question, White House correspondents essentially asked why anyone should believe that Bush has a viable strategy for success in Iraq. The clear subtext is that the commander-in-chief has little or no credibility left on the subject.

Compare that to the tone of the questioning in 2003 and 2004, and the difference is striking.'

I luaghed out loud. although I might was well have cried. This is the pathetic state of 'journalism'.

Gee Howie, fnally after 4 years of submission and propaganda, a few reporters do their freaking jobs. they ask a couple tough questions. 4 years... billions of dollars, thousands of dead americans. THAT'S THEIR JOB. You better beleive it's different than the submissive, pathetic tone of questioning in the past years. ITS ABOUT TIME.

But no, Howie feels so bad for the president. Because somebody finally asks does bush actually have any credibility? NO. Does he have a viable strategy? NO.

but this is apparently too shocking for little Howie. Gives him the vapors. But then he doesn't have any kids in Iraq, does he? Nor does a single other member of the pampered cosseted press corps, i would wager.

Go out and get a real job for a change Howie. You make me puke.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I have heard that this Vitter story will keep getting worce, like many prostitutes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Like paying child support to one prostitute. The shame is if you go to Vitter's office there are all kinds of pictures of his beautiful children and his public perception as a family man. Anyway, I think this story plays less to the hurting Jindal and more to assisting Mary Landrieu who looks like the responcible Louisiana Senator.

I personally believe that Jindal is a paper tiger, if Boasso breaks through the percieved inevitability of Jindal then there is a chance.

Posted by: fair and balanced | July 13, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I have heard that this Vitter story will keep getting worce, like many prostitutes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Like paying child support to one prostitute. The shame is if you go to Vitter's office there are all kinds of pictures of his beautiful children and his public perception as a family man. Anyway, I think this story plays less to the hurting Jindal and more to assisting Mary Landrieu who looks like the responcible Louisiana Senator.

I personally believe that Jindal is a paper tiger, if Boasso breaks through the percieved inevitability of Jindal then there is a chance.

Posted by: fair and balanced | July 13, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Oops, 'Boasso' not 'Boassa.' My bad.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

"The early ads show that Blunt knows he is in for a tough race and is trying to firm up his base in the early going so that he can turn the contest into a partisan battle, believing that Missouri tends to lean toward Republicans."

Doesn't seem like a particularly safe bet. Will any state lean toward R's in 2008? No, Utah is now officially a cult, not a state, so it doesn't count.

Watched a couple of Boasso's ads. Nice approach, broad appeal and it'll be hard(er) to paint a self-made businessman as a rabid liberal. Is it a LA state law that all politicians echo Huey Long's populist approach or is Boassa taking a risk? Boassa should approach Randy Newman and ask him to write his backing soundtracks.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company