The Debate

Edwards cleaned both their clocks on health care. I suspect the Hair Video will get as much mileage as anything actually said in the debate. You MSMers should be forced to watch it before every story you file.

Joe, this is a serious question... earlier today you said you supported a Democratic bill that would force the war back towards the recommendations of the Irag Study Group. I commented to you that ISG is now out of date. Not you say, when it comes to when we can get out of Iraq that ISG is no guide because it's out of date.

Which is it?

"Hell, yeah. It's a lot better than electing a President by having the Democratic candidate slimed via sleazy Republican leaks to your site, Matt."

If this site were a Kazuo Ishiguro novel, this paragraph would be an instance of narrative irony.

But on the subject of haircuts, if I were spending all that money, I'd have the barber add a little gray: I'm not sure why it is, but Edwards comes off as too much the tyro to be a President. Appearances do matter. Sorry.
****
GEEZ, Joe, if you were spending that much on haircuts, you'd have the barber cover the gray!
Be honest!

Gray hairs mixed amongst the blond hairs AIN'T gonna show up very well on teevee, Joe, and you should know that.

Yes, appearances matter so very much that we ended up with a dimwit in 2000 and 2004 whose appearances are sooooooo stunning that his poll numbers are down to 25%.

Appearance never mattered until teevee came along, Joe, and quite frankly, I'd just as soon have Frankenstein (did I spell that right) as president of these here "nunited" states as I would President Malfunction.

Edwards line about the coat was hilarious. I was on a treadmill in a gym w/ a bunch of people, and the whole line laughed at that.

"a lot better than electing a President by having the Democratic candidate slimed via sleazy Republican leaks to your site, Matt"

Unfortunately, that's precisely how it will go down. It has already killed John Edwards. Obama is next. Clinton is the big game, they'll keep their powder dry until next spring.

But the slime will fly, and as always you and the rest of the court jesters will be too busy lamenting that the Democrats are not doing everything the moderate Republicans want to figure out what is going on. You will abet Drudge as you always do. You even have an Edwards hair comment in this very f-ing post.

And it is always three years too late with you morons. Oops, Gore never said he invented the Internet. Thanks for telling us that in 2003, Murray Kempton. Kerry got dishonestly smeared? Well, it's only 2007. No harm done.

I'm calling it right now: the "prohibitively pathetic" Fred Thompson will be the next President. And in 2011, Joe will be telling us all what an empty suit he was.

The debate format was a success because it presented a new and interesting format for political discussion which relies on public participation. However, I still think it overlooks some issues which although they are important, may not be hot button issues or ones that the candidates have prepared for; which is what I was hoping for in this debate. For example, an issue that seems to be at the heart of many of the most hotly debated topics is global poverty. Immigration, terrorism, and national security are very important issues facing our country and get much attention, but global poverty is the thread that connects them all. It would be nice to hear the candidates’ opinions on this issue.

"Richardson--I still don't get it. You can't pull the troops out of Iraq in 6 months. "

Joe, as far as Iraq predictions, you're track record precludes you from being taken seriously at all. Tell it to Ryan 'Straight Shooter' Crocker.

"It's a lot better than electing a President by having the Democratic candidate slimed via sleazy Republican leaks to your site, Matt."

You do realize there seems to be some contractual obligation on Time's part to include at least one Drudge fueled story a week here right?

Since Joe Klein is used to asking puffball questions, he probably didn't notice that there was only one (1) question that asked a candidate to defend one of their specific policies (JE on gay marriage).

All of the other questions asked the candidates to state their opinions, and almost all of those opinions were already on their web sites.

If you'd like to encourage CNN and Youtube to do better, please watch the 1 second video at my name's link that simply says "CNN's choice of questions for the debate really sucked".

If it gets a lot of views, Youtube might be embarassed enough that they decide to do a better job.

We on the internet can do better than people like Joe Klein and the MSM hacks at CNN, but we need to remove CNN from the gatekeeper role.

Geez, Joe get out a pic of JFK, RFK or Tony Blair.

Hair, long as I can grow it, hair, long beautiful hair.

PS: Did anyone notice that when the Citadel KIA's from Iraq/Afghanistan were put up on the 'big screen' that Edwards was the one actually looking at them? The rest were looking away.

I thought the debate was good -- certainly the best so far. The questions seemed to keep the debaters loose and have to come up with some real answers. (Frankly I thought one of the best Biden moments was when he called the guy with the huge gun a freak -- you know that was what everyone else was thinking.)

I'm actually looking forward to the YouTube Republican debate. I'll bet that those guys get some real weirdos from their base show up.

This debate, or any debate for that matter, favors Hillary as she has the kind of sound-bite politics favored by the MSM down pat, which is one of the reasons I don't like her. I thought Obama did well, but Hillary knows how this game is played. Obama's playing to the people, Hillary is playing to the pundits.

Hillary and Obama are #1. The two of them together are the DREAM TEAM!

Archie, sorry but that isn't going to fly. The real dream team would be Brownback-Huckabee.

"This debate, or any debate for that matter, favors Hillary as she has the kind of sound-bite politics favored by the MSM down pat, which is one of the reasons I don't like her."

There's something we can agree on. Hillary will be tough to beat in a general -- if it comes down to who can give the best sound byte, she can't lose. That's why putting a RINO (like Rudy or Romney) up against here would be suicide.

Hillary did well and Obama was more direct than before. Richardson was better than last time but then he really needed to be. No basic change in standing. As expected. I liked the YouTube format. I'm evilly fascinated by how the Republicans are going to handle it. Could be hilarious, or cringingly unwatchable, or both.

Edwards (and Joe) are right. An individual mandate is the only way to get to universal coverage. We did it that way here in Oz (in 1973!). You can do it too.

I've got to stop saying Joe is right. I must pay more attention to his mistakes.

It seems to me that Obama won this one, don't you HONESTLY think so?

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/democratic-presidential-candidates.html#links

I really enjoyed this debate and I usually don't. Joe, I have to disagree with you about the Obama/Hillary question, Obama's answer was directed to the spirit of the question. No one should have believed that Obama's answer meant that he would rush out for a photo-op with Kim Jong-Il the next day after reaching office. Hillary's answer was just nitpicking in my opinion.

Okay so obama got it WRONG on the mandate issue, and Hillary shoed him up over Diplomatic Decorum, and Obama won it?

Don't think so.

I thought the big winners were ordinary people, who clearly show more understanding and respect for real issues, than the mainstream press. At the end of the debate we were treated to one of CNN's many airheads discussing Clinton's choice of pink, versus the dark suits, and it was even more obvious who the losers are.

I was pessimistic and didn't watch. I thought it would turn into a big cringefest, especially given that it was a CNN production. When is the last time they did something right? The first Iraq war? I couldn't be more astonished at the almost universally good reviews. Both Kos and Klein liked it? How is that possible? Bizzarroworld.

All credit has to go to the people who submitted video questions. Plus a little to Cooper I guess if he held the contestants responsible for providing an answer. Why O why don't they do that more often? I ask you.

hillary refused to answer questions about Darfur, making her look like a scared wimp. Why the silence on one of the biggest lib "progressive" issues facing the "progressive" party? Is it that they really have no answer?

I thought edwards' wife was running for office based on all the interviews she's been releasing, so why was that lame-duck ex-senator from NC on stage?

And what, exactly, has barak hussein obama accomplished in less than one complete term in the senate?

These would be more appropriate Youtube questions.

Didn't see the parade of kooks on the unwatched Clinton News Network, but let me guess: the "questions" selected by Clinton News Network predictably echoed the Democrat party/Al Qaeda talking points favored by Clinton News Network. Did Clinton News Network actually fool anyone with its transparent attempt to disquise its political agenda behind the video "questions" of other people?

Joe - In your previous post about how to elect a Dem in 2008 you recommended that Dems work with moderate Republicans to pass legislation.

Please name these moderate Republicans. Seriously - I need to know who they are and why they would start acting independently from their party now since they have not done so in the past.

It is the stated policy of the GOP to filibuster and obstruct everything that they can. Why would they do such a grossly irresponsible thing you ask? They do it because they are providing political cover for Bush so that he does not have to be seen to veto everything. They do it because they are providing political cover for Bush so that he does not have to admit that the Surge is not working. They do it because they are providing political cover for Bush so that when the Patreaus Report is eventually submitted the Legislative Branch will be so swamped with unfinished and necessary legislation that the Dems will not have time to force a change of policy. There is no downside to the GOP's policy of obstruction - only upside.

And, finally, they do it so that people will blame the Dems for not getting anything done - people like you who then write about it and influence millions. So please tell me, why is it that the GOP filibusters and obstructs and yet you blame the Dems?

Watched the show and think Hillary came off best with Obama a close second. I just don't know about Edwards any more. Richardson solid but flat, Biden : good show but a sideshow; Dodd : fluent but on the margins.I know this is a democracy: but do Gravel and Kucinich really contribute to the process? They can say all kinds of things knowing they will never have to deliver. What makes these guys run? Of course they're entitled. But they really screw up the debates because they will never have to live up to their lofty rhetoric.

Fewer candidates and more time to give real answers and time for follow up questions may produce a more informative debate than the current format.

The YouTube questioner who opposed the war, but repeated again and again, "How Do you pull out...now?" had a point that no except Biden and Clinton (Again!) responded to with any honesty.

The grammatical error in this snip officially qualifies Joke Line as a true blogger, of the right-leaning, slobbering, not-all-that-smart variety.

I said so.

"...What's needed is UN peacekeepers..."

And that just for Albany, New York.

terrapin:

the dems did the same exact thing when they were the minority. You can stop calling the kettle black now.

"Richardson--I still don't get it. You can't pull the troops out of Iraq in 6 months. "

of course you can. We put 150,000 troops into Iraq in less than a month when there was a standing Army opposing us.... why should it take six months to get them out when the most dangerous enemy is a small cadre of potential suicide bombers, and the biggest threat is improvised mines?

Of course, it may take longer than a month to get all the troops home... we may need to set up camp again in Kuwait while waiting transportation for soldiers and equipment to make the necessary trips there and back again. Bust most troops could be home in two months -- the balance would be sitting in Kuwait, watching the equipment that has to be shipped back.

Someday, Joe is actually going to THINK about stuff before he writes it.... but today ain't that day.

We also need to pull the troops out from Philadelphia, Detroit, and NOLA.

I mean, the wars there too are lost, and those people really don't want us there anyway.

I'm just following liberal logic here.

petra loonatick says...

"We put 150,000 troops into Iraq in less than a month when there was a standing Army opposing us...."

Say general genius, where, exactly, IS you getting your SNL timeline? Directly from Santa Fe Wilson HQ?

It took MONTHS to prep the logistics of getting the invasion force readied (just as in Gulf 1) - and it will take LONGER to extract them (which ain't gonna happen, and should NOT happen, soon).

We've been in Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan for about 60 YEARS.

Try to at least hold your local pee, eh?

IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!

QH = JJ = Voice of Reason

Say Joe, you forgot the DNC cornerstoners...

- Abortion on demand
- Unilateral surrender
- Free health care for fat guys
- 2 Mommies In Every Gayrage
- Janet Cooke as your typical Time anonymous blog presser
- Rolling Stoned running the DOD via cash bar
- Wankette pissing on any and all things military
- The subjugations of church and family to state (unless Hillary attends that month)
- Union thuggery as free speech
- Schoooooomer selling free credit reports
- Splitzer peddling free FOIA reports
- Leftosi peddling free petrol reports
- Billary shredding free air fare reports
- Reid and Obama selling their Century 21 jackets
- The Clixon agenda to split the Guard & Reserves from the regulars, in their never ending Che war of loathing on the 100% volunteer troops (99.99% of which never participated in nor sanctioned Abu Ghraib or the alleged Dan Rather)
- Never mentioning the deep, dark downsides of the Canadian and UK medical "miracles" of Take A Number socialism
- Rwanda
- Somalia
- Zimbabwe
- Nepal
- Tibet
- Kosovo 2008
- South Africa
- USS Cole
- Khobar Towers
- WTC I
- Waco
- South Beach
- Southern churches that never actually burned while BJ Boy was a perceived young man
- FBI files
- Travel Office
- pardons
- perjury
- peckerwood

Oh my yes, legacy well done.

So after supporting interventionist foreign policy in Somalia, Serbia, Kosovo and Iraq, offensively expanding NATO onto Russia's doorstep, stating that Iraq had nukes, placing Tenet at the helm of the CIA, Hillary doesn't want american soldiers in Darfur. Yeah right.

The Iraq invasion is the apex of Bush/Clinton/Bush interventionist foreign policy.

Is it true that unwatched MSDNC gameshow hostess Keith Olbermoronn will serve as hostess of MSDNC's Democrat party "debate" on her knees?

QH/archie:

Shut up shut up shut up shut up!
Go to Iraq and die for Bush!
We don't care what you think.
You are a stupid red flyover state knuckledragger.

"...hillary refused to answer questions about Darfur, making her look like a scared wimp. Why the silence on one of the biggest lib "progressive" issues facing the "progressive" party? Is it that they really have no answer?

I thought edwards' wife was running for office based on all the interviews she's been releasing, so why was that lame-duck ex-senator from NC on stage?

And what, exactly, has barak hussein obama accomplished in less than one complete term in the senate?"

...

BEST POST OF THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.

BTW, if anyone is interested in seeing what a real candidate's debate looks like, there will be a candidates forum on Saturday (aug 4) during YKOS. It will be co-moderated by DKos blogger Joan McCarter (aka McJoan) and NY Times magazine writer Matt Bai. The questions will be selected from among the thousand that are being submitted via the web (in text form) with the selection committee composed primarily of progressive bloggers, with a few former Democratic presidential aspirants (Hart, Mondale, McGovern), a Democratic operative (Brazile) and "liberal mainstream" jounalist (Ari Melber of The Nation) thrown in for good measure.

In other words, we can expect nothing but tough, substantive questions on important issues -- no gimmicks, no bs, no "gotchas" -- just good questions and (hopefully) straight answers.

In order to reach the candidates for the top office, I have to submit a video to a web site designed for juveniles of all ages (YouTube).

And the questions and debate? Blah. More droning over the same menu topics. Gay marriage. Iraq. A hair cut.

What about real issues? (1) Medicare legislation has altered reimbursement rates that has oncology practices closing at alarming rates. (2) The unaptly-named Americans with Disabilities Act contains language that prevents Americans with REAL disabilities from filing law suits against their employers. No wonder ADA passed in 1990. (3) Cyberstalking via defamation and search engine vandalism of a person's name has immeasurable affects on its victims. Isn't it time we introduced legislation to regulate the Internet, search engines, and message forums in some ways?

FYI -- Ana Marie is going to be on the Brian Leher Show at 10:00 a.m. EDT to discuss the debates. The show is on WNYC.

BRING THE BRAVE VOLUNTEER TROOPS HOME, NOW.

SEND PELOSI'S GRANDKIDS AND CHELSEA IN 3 YEARS UNDER THE DARING DNC DRAFT, INSTEAD.

HUNKER DOWN ON CAPE CRAP AND WAIT FOR THE INCOMING, ALWAYS.

James, Los Angeles-- I would never have watched it but for the fact that some friends wanted to (I would have watched Jon Lester's comeback against the Indians on ESPN). But I did, and it was very enjoyable.

I really enjoyed Biden. At least three laugh-out-loud funny lines, re: guns, Kucinich, and Tennessee. He was also very forceful and impressive on substance. I don't know who won overall; I could see Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards, or Biden as the winner (I lean toward supporting Obama, who I thought was quite good, but his thoughtful, measured style doesn't win in this format). I expected to dislike Kucinich and be impressed by Richardson; the opposite happened in each case. Gravel is... captain of his own spaceship, let's say. And it's an angry spaceship.

Anderson Cooper was very good-- kept people from talking too long, and tried to get straight answers out of everyone.

As fun as it was, it's hard for me to see it as much more than an entertainment event. It's tough to differentiate all that much on policy. And Obama's "yes" response to the "meet with bad guys" Q was, as Clinton and Klein point out, a little too eager-- but I'm sure Obama himself would say that, if he had more than 10 seconds to think it over before responding to a yes or no question. So if that winds up being The Big Story, as Klein predicts here, that would be, to wrap up with another Boston reference, wicked retahded.

It took MONTHS to prep the logistics of getting the invasion force readied (just as in Gulf 1) - and it will take LONGER to extract them (which ain't gonna happen, and should NOT happen, soon)."

it the US military does not have contingency plans available for the rapid redeployment of troops out of Iraq, then the Joint Chiefs appointed by Bush are even less competent than I ever imagined they could be.

We can be out of Iraq, and home, in six months IF the plans already exist. And the failure to have plans is not an excuse for not getting us out in six months ---- blame the incompetents at the Pentagon and the sycophants like Petraeus if we have to leave behind some equipment.

Joe, are you going to correct your previous post to reflect that Sheehan is running as an Independent?

White House aides have conducted at least half a dozen political briefings for the Bush administration's top diplomats, including a PowerPoint presentation for ambassadors with senior adviser Karl Rove that named Democratic incumbents targeted for defeat in 2008 and a "general political briefing" at the Peace Corps headquarters after the 2002 midterm elections.

The briefings, mostly run by Rove's deputies at the White House political affairs office, began in early 2001 and included detailed analyses for senior officials of the political landscape surrounding critical congressional and gubernatorial races, according to documents obtained by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

ModerateAmerica - Your response to me is provably wrong. Many 'moderate' or 'centrist' Dems broke ranks with the party and supported much of what the GOP-dominated congress tried to do.

I do not understand why you chose 'ModerateAmerica' as your psuedonym because you appear to be just another unthinking GOP shill. And if you are just another GOP shill then you need to look at the polling numbers that show that you are in the minority in America and that your views are considered extreme.

Hatred of liberals is not a steady platform on which to build a political movement - especially after the rest of the country finally figures out that that is all you have.

At the end of the debate we were treated to one of CNN's many airheads discussing Clinton's choice of pink, versus the dark suits, and it was even more obvious who the losers are.
********
Pink????????????

lol

On my teevee, it was Halloween Orange, and I tend to agree with Edwards' implication (that is, it
hollered because it was so LOUD)!

With his snide commentary on Clinton's coat, Edwards came off like a bitchy-queen.

While it might not help Edwards shake off his Breck-girl image, it does go some in making the Breck-girl also seem "catty".

Paul L -- "if the US military does not have contingency plans available for the rapid redeployment of troops out of Iraq, then the Joint Chiefs appointed by Bush are even less competent than I ever imagined they could be."

Check out the article in today's NYT about the new plan the Joint Chiefs et al have devised. Looks as though you are right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24military.html?ex=1343016000&en=8538886a7ba1cca2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

(If the permalink doesn't work, it is Michael Gordon in today's Times.)

This is why we need to bring home the troops and disband the army. We need peace and the war criminals leading the illegal war are incompetent. We need to re-educate the troops so they can lead productive civilian lives instead of being tools for illegal wars.

Kucinich and Gravel--as ever. Enough already.
***
Let's fix that a wee bit:

Broder and Klein--as ever. Enough already.

ama: Just a quick note. Whose blonde hair? Edwards has brown hair so the grey would show. And the President, while he has many many negatives, being a dimmwit is not one. Just to let you know he actually had higher entrance score and a higher four-year GPA at Yale than his 2004 opponent did. And a higher GPA at comparable university, than his 2000 opponent. And the congress rating is at 25% or lower not the President's which is low but not the lowest ever by far. Also while he did not :( serve in Vietnam he did fly Air Force jets. Less than 1% percent of people who try to qualifiy for that make it. Sorry for the grammer mistakes. English not my native language

"Less than 1% percent of people who try to qualifiy for that make it. "

Bush did not "make it" because he qualfied -- his test scores were abysmal, and he would never have been allowed anywhere near a flight school had it not been for the intercession of the Texas political establishment.

"But on the subject of haircuts, if I were spending all that money, I'd have the barber add a little gray"

Teh stupid. It burns. And if he had the barber "add a little gray", we'd be back in the MSM horror chamber of the phony "Al Gore Wears Earth Tones".

Keep your trivial comments coming, Joe. I think it is refreshing to see that you have finally shrugged off all of the substantive criticism of bloggers and are comfortable in your true role as one of the awful print Time columnists. Let your Hack flag fly!

"And the congress rating is at 25% or lower not the President's which is low but not the lowest ever by far"

The Democrats congressional rating, when broken out by party, is in the low 30s. And it is that low because many Democratic and Independent voters feel they haven't done enough to oppose the President. That is hardly good news for the GOP.

Lets get this straight; an illegal immigrant named Diego? Who's a GOP apologist? Hhmm usted, mi amigo es un idiota que mientes. Sock Puppet anyone....?

"Archie, sorry but that isn't going to fly. The real dream team would be Brownback-Huckabee."

Oh yes, that would be wonderful. LBJ landslide proportions.

Although with the bunch they have right now, I think they've got a good shot at Utah and, what, Mississipi--if the USAttorney there can keep the blacks at home.

terrapin,

I'm hardly staunchly right wing. I am indeed a moderate, yet view the shrill, angry left as a group of wastoids and whiners. I deplore the extreme right bible-thumpers as well, so I'm fully equal opportunity.

both obama and hillary were wrong in discussing dealings with nations such as n. korea, venezuela, etc. If we approach them, it makes it seem like a victory for those rogue nations, and they'll use it as a propaganda tool. Yes, that includes even low-level envoy talks. As for darfur: libs hold parades in front of capitol hill for this cause, yet their leaders have obviously abandoned them, as no action has been taken (or even mentioned) in congress. Don't you see a hint of a problem with that? If you stepped back from your extreme left wing stance, you might.

ModerateAmerica: "I'm hardly staunchly right wing."

Please, dude. "Barack Hussein Obama"? "libs"? Learn better trolling tactics.

arch stanton is the reason libs will never be a majority. An army will always be necessary, though at this point gradual redeployment to Afghanistan and other hotspots would be the best course of action.

Here is the true voice of Moderate America (thanks to Gleen Greenwald...)

Vast majorities, for instance, disapprove of Bush's handling of the war (31-68); trust the Democrats in Congress more than Bush to handle Iraq (32-55); believe that the Iraq War was not worth fighting (36-63); believe that we should withdraw our forces even if that means civil order is not restored there (39-59); believe that the "surge" has either worsened the situation or made no difference (22-75); believe the "surge" will not improve the situation (34-64); support setting a deadline of next Spring for withdrawal (43-55); support a policy change to focus only on training Iraqi troops rather than fighting insurgents (21-74); believe that Congress, rather than President Bush, should have final say in when we withdraw (31-62); and believe that Democrats in Congress have done too little or about the right amount, rather than too much, to force Bush to change his Iraq policy [too much (17%); too little (49%); about the right amount (31%)].

Elvis:

There's a problem by calling a candidate by his real name? Please. Another lib whining tactic. Insult and villify when the truth emerges.

Yes, I use the term "lib" in a typically derogatory manner. They deserve it.

Oh, and you did another stereotypical lib thing: a convenient omission of the fact that I also said something derogatory about the right wing, i.e. "bible thumpers".

It's time for you to step back and take a wider view of the world instead of being such a narrow and hateful individual.

Jake:

Never said I approved of how the war was handled. I think my mention of redeployment is indicative of that.

Hey Joe, can you get word to Jay to find out if anyone in the Swamp is going to live blog Alberto Gonzales' testimony today?

Jay feels this debate stuff is "useless." Perhaps he might send a reporter on his crack staff to cover this event. It might be newsworthy to see what happens on the hill today?

Thanks

p_lukasiak, we can only get out in less than 6 months if we leave all our equipment behind. Yes, the military went into Iraq relatively quickly. But you're leaving out the fact that we've been sending more and more and more equipment and supplies into Iraq every day since, far more than is getting destroyed or consumed. Plus you're assuming the insurgency is just going to let our forces walk out. It won't be as bad as when Britain left Afghanistan, but we can't just signal all our troops to make a run for Kuwait.

If we use peacefulness and tolerance to the so called insurgents they will let us leave in peace.

"Hey Joe, can you get word to Jay to find out if anyone in the Swamp is going to live blog Alberto Gonzales' testimony today?"

Uh, you mean pointless Defeatocrat fishing expedition? I think not, I would assume.

Tyro?

Is that centrist pundit slang?

p_lukasiak: "[If] the US military does not have contingency plans available for the rapid redeployment of troops out of Iraq, then the Joint Chiefs appointed by Bush are even less competent than I ever imagined they could be."

They don't have such contingency plans, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. What would suggest that they do have that kind of a contingency plan? Not the Pentagon's recent statements to Senator Clinton, attacking her patriotism for even asking whether or not there is such a plan. Not Bush's refusal to set any sort of timeline for withdrawl. Certainly not the millions of dollars we've spent building military installations in Iraq. Is there any evidence that either the military or the president have any sort of withdrawl plan, let alone one that will get us out in six months or less? If there is, I have not seen it.

NO NO NO NO NO

Gonzales is illegal and MUST BE IMPEACHED so that we can find out who ordered his illegal FIRINGS so we can then IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH and INSTALL NANCY until we ELECT HILLARY!

This so called expedition has EVERY POINT we stand for and we do it for the good of the American people.

(im)ModerateAmerica: "There's a problem by calling a candidate by his real name? Please."

Then why didn't you use Clinton and Edward's full name in your post? Elvis is correct is stating that your comment is intentionally predjudicial, something that is considered troll-like behavior.

I would say that the remainder of your comments (Venezuela is a 'rogue state'?) Place you firmly to the right-of-center. Saying that you dislike those even *further* to your right does not mean that you are centrist or moderate...only that you are marginally sane.

I think Venezuela and it's people, and especially it's leader are totally great. We need to follow their example so we can have free nationalized healthcare and cheap gas too!

Anyone who gets up front of the UN and calls Bush the Devil in the US has my unyielding respect!

Any Swamplanders have any comments on Gonzales' pathetic testimony today? (see TPMm for details: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ )

And what should Congress do about Gonzales, given that he hasn't had the decency to resign? The only solution I see is impeachment though perhaps Joe has some novel solution involving bed pans.

"Gonzales is illegal and MUST BE IMPEACHED so that we can find out who ordered his illegal FIRINGS so we can then IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH and INSTALL NANCY until we ELECT HILLARY!"

That is sheer craziness. And you wonder why you guys can't win an elections. Sheesh...

Freedom from 'the best political team' was short lived as we are getting the pre-approved take on the debate by those who consistantly get it wrong. I did like the 'new' debate. I think it was because they had eliminated the CNN questioners who spend so much time 'splainin' the question, that one forgets the question.

Gonzo is live on CSpan 3. Caught a great Leahy smack down. Gonzo testifying about his 'encounter with Goodling' as an attempt to console states that he had now clarified 'policies in the department'. Leahy asked if he had informed the WH. "No" Leahy did a great, why don't you call them-they're in the book, etc.

Anyway had Bush's 'history lesson from Charleston' on. It was followed by CNN International where Michael Ware challenged with a 'duh-why now-that's just street knowledge-must be a need to spin to promote domestic politics' kind of a major smack down. This was followed by a Jim Clancy-Mackenzie Eaglen, Heritage Foundation interview. MEaglen, of course, did the 'our dear and glorious leader, oh, Decider the Great' number. Seems Jim Clancy actually challenged her BS. Now, the question becomes will CNN International continue on their usual hour or will they pollute the one hour of real news with more 'Lindsay Lohan relapse' stories?

archie stanson, just because Bush sucks and Chavez says so, it does not follow that Chavez doesn't suck also. And obviously the credit (if that's what it is) for cheap gas at least in Venezuela goes as much to their geology as their leadership.

Or maybe you were just being humorous.

Crust-

YES TO IMPEACHMENT FOR GONZALES!
He will lead us to the end of Cheney and Bush!

We MUST ACT NOW!

Call your congresspeople and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT!

Blogs4STUPIDKansan

You cannot win an election other than for stealing them like you did in 2000 and 2004 (disenfrancisement of the noble African Americans of Broward County and rigged DIEBOLD machines.)

NEOCON LOSER! GO BACK TO KANSAS AND TAKE YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!

You know, after the debate, the fake Drudge headline about "behaving like a man" was put to (I think) Elizabeth Edwards by none other than Wolf Blitzer.

He rules your world, scumbags.

Crust - what I respect about Chavez is that he says what he means and does what he says. I think we Democrats need to do the same. We need to get out there and say what we stand for in clear language and get the message out. Only then can we achieve our goals of IMPEACHMENT, LEAVING IRAQ, and SOCIAL JUSTICES through SOCIALISM (we have got to stop letting the neocons make people fear this!)

Socialism is NOT a bad word!

Like Oprah said, our public schools, our police, and fire departments are run in a socialist manner. Why not health and energy?

archie stanson: "I think.."

Wrong in the first two words! That's gotta be, like, a record or something, spoofer...

You know, the more I hear from this guy, the more I realize that he is the only Democrats to ever fearlessly express what they really want. Even though I disagree with everything he says as a conservative, I at least respect the honesty.

grape_crush = archie stanson

"That is sheer craziness. And you wonder why you guys can't win an elections. Sheesh..."

That crazy voice is a GOP troll. He's been on here for weeks. He's probably paid to troll this site and act like a strawman liberal instead of debating us in a straightforward manner (which he'd fail at miserably). Look at the other posts for "archie stanson" and you can see that he's not genuine...

If you follow this site, it becomes obvious pretty quickly who's legit and who's trying to jam up the works...

Thank you anon (even though as a neocon you are responsible for destroying the nation).

I think some in here are threatened by the fact that I am a true liberal who drives a hybrid and says what we really think instead of posers who just like to say they are liberals.

As long as someone gets our message out that is all that matters...

Like JJ for example.
He drives a Hummer.

I cannot tell who is real and who is not real as this troll you refer to sounds like a distilled version of what most of the rest of you have to say. I don't get the infighting as you all seem to be on the same side, but oh well...

Don't worry, archie, you'll make it out of the AEI basement some day!! ...

Two cubes somewhere in the basement of the American Enterprise Institute:

archie stanson: Hey, Freeper. (Pokes his head above the cube wall, then ducks to avoid hitting his head on a steam pipe.) How's the global warming denialism doing?

Freeper137: Oh, you know. Same ol', same ol'. Working from the Luntz memo and the old Fred Singer papers... And the Swampland commenters?

archie stanson: Well, the dirty f***ing hippie frame is just not working. I'm afraid we have a bunch of Factonistas on my hands. Damn! They don't pay me enough to actually *research* what I type. We right wingers only like to do homework when grade grubbing is involved.

Freeper137: Yeah, the reality based community. I have to deal with those guys all the time. Hey, did you go to the seminar on "Whole Foods and Prius Drivers--Making the Most of Vague Anecdotes
and Imagery"? That stuff works great. Brooks uses it all the time. The presentation was done by the same guy who did the "Appropriating Gramsci" paper.

archie stanson: Yeah, I didn't go to that. I went to the other one, "Ad Hominem Argument and You."

Freeper137: I heard that was good.

archie stanson: It was. You know, in the cafeteria I ran into they guys who are doing the Iran War planning. What I wouldn't give to be working on that stuff.

Freeper137: Yeah, you said it... Careful with your head, there, Larry. That steam pipe is hot.

archie stanson: One day, Freeper, we'll be up there with those guys.

Freeper137: Yeah, one day. In the meantime, we gotta keep on hackin' away...

archie stanson: Yup. Keep on keepin' on. Hey, look on the bright side--you know, paychecks come today.

Freeper137: Thank God for Exxon Mobil. Speaking of which, I gotta show up at a grant writing meeting.

archie stanson: Keep that gravy train runnin', Freeper...

Freeper137: You know it, Larry.

Why can you not pull out troops in 6 months? I bet Richardson can. If he was able to make deals with N Korea and Sudan then he can do so with Iraq.

And I am not a Richardson supporter--Edwards most likely.

Anyone have any comment on Cindy Sheehan being arrested outside John Conyers' office today?

Apparently she was trying to get him to proceed with impeachment, and he was insisting they don't have the votes to proceed.

- Scott

Also, Harry Reid did a good thing and showed that it is not the Democrats who are blocking efforts to bring the troops home but Republicans.

And Democrats are not capitulating but just being blocked all the way by Republicans.

70% want the war to end. Republicans have been blocking the effort. It is that clear. I am not sure why you cannot see it.

Protecting your career instead of telling the truth?

Anonymous: "You know, the more I hear from this guy, the more I realize that he is the only Democrats to ever fearlessly express what they really want."

Oh yeah, because some spoofer on a blog parrots an exaggerated right-wing version of 'what Democrats believe', it's representative of the Democratic party as a whole. Please. The few people reading this comment section aren't as dumb as you need them to be.

Anonymous: "grape_crush = archie stanson"

lol - Is that all you have?

Nah. I'd get bored of the pretense pretty quickly. Spoofing a handle is fun for a couple of comments, but beyond that, such behavior is either intentional and/or pathological in nature.

JJ = paid by Halliburton to attack real liberals.
Does Darth Cheney sign your paycheck?

grape_crush - what makes you think I need anyone to be dumb? All I am saying is that this guy you claim to be some operative troll sounds a lot like the rest of you. Nothing personal, mate, and certainly no need to be all defensive about it.

Anonymous: "I cannot tell who is real and who is not real.."

Critical thinking is not one of your strong points? Color me suprised.

Anon - they are all just jealous of my pure true liberalism that they aspire to.

grape - why so hostile? I came over here to see what was going on and maybe learn something and yet all you do is attack me? Why? What did I ever do to you?

I would say "just ignore 'archie stanson' until he goes away", but that probably isn't true.

Still - why don't you just ignore him? The guy spends all day imitating a caricature of a "liberal", and has not responded to any request to stop.

Believe what you believe, and stop worrying that guys like "archie" might accidentally convince a few people your side of the debate is insane.

The comments here feature about a dozen regulars, and roughly another dozen occasional posters like myself. Some guy trolling a blog isn't going to make big waves in the world at large.

- Scott

Sheehan was yesterday. As a military mom who has opposed the 'war' when it was still a gleam in Bush's eye, I have great empathy for Cindy and her right to protest. However, the woman needs some serious grief counselling.

When the Gonzo committee adjourned there was a small but vocal group demonstrating verbally. It appeared that they were ignored.

Schumer did bring up the possibility of a subpoena for Patrick Fitzgerald to testify before the committee citing the resent testimony of Sutton about the Border Patrol agents before committee with the cases being in the same 'phases'.

I got really confused by the Specter remarks. He seemed to be trying to double-dutch the shark. First, requesting a meeting with the excluded by Executive Privilege, then saying a transcript would protect all parties, but then maybe they could do it without a transcript, but then he was not willing to give up subpeona power.

Ah, Specter. Anybody got a take on this latest?

Posted by ModerateAmerica
July 24, 2007

both obama and hillary were wrong in discussing dealings with nations such as n. korea, venezuela, etc. If we approach them, it makes it seem like a victory for those rogue nations, and they'll use it as a propaganda tool. Yes, that includes even low-level envoy talks. As for darfur: libs hold parades in front of capitol hill for this cause, yet their leaders have obviously abandoned them, as no action has been taken (or even mentioned) in congress. Don't you see a hint of a problem with that? If you stepped back from your extreme left wing stance, you might.

---
You may not have noticed, but GW is negotiating with N Korea. The current food/supplies for halting nuke development is virtually identical to the Clinton plan that neocons hated. The only difference, by not negotiating, N Korea actually was able to develop nukes, something that didn't happen under Clinton.

Only a fool like GW would refuse to enter into negitiations with an enemy. It's an art called diplomacy. If you only talk to friends, you influence only a small circle.

Anonymous: "..what makes you think I need anyone to be dumb?"

Well, you *are* asking them to take the spoofer seriously, aren't you?

Anonymous: "..All I am saying is that this guy you claim to be some operative troll sounds a lot like the rest of you."

So *now* you get all reasonable-like. Good. Can we maintain a reasonable discussion? I'll start; let's see if you can keep it going:

The problem with the archie spoofer is exactly *that*: the exaggeration used in his/her/its statements is used to lump the various views of those on the left (and, increasingly, center) together in the eyes of (supposedly) reasonable people such as yourself.

I will admit that there is an increased call for impeachment, getting our troops out of Iraq, and stopping obstructionism, negligence, and the flouting of the law by members of what has become the George Bush Party, but that's spread across the political spectrum, and not just limited to the 'rest of us'.

Anonymous: "..Nothing personal, mate, and certainly no need to be all defensive about it."

Not really defensive, just tired of putting up with BS, 'mate'...

Scottoest: "Still - why don't you just ignore him?"

Usually I do, aside from the occasional snarky comment, because it tends to derail a discussion, but...

...on another level, ignoring those like him has pushed this country into a bad place, one which we good people can only dig ourselves out of by pushing back.

How do you pull 150K troops out in six months?

Well, Joe, the attack on Pearl Harbor happened December 7 and destroyed much of the Pacific fleet.

June 4, the US Navy fought and won the Battle of Midway, sinking 4 aircraft carriers and more than 300 planes. The Japanese Navy never recovered.

Okay, that was 7 months. But it's 7 months from near devastation and the declaration of war to the true beginning of victory.

Do you really think that rebuilding the navy, enlisting millions, rearming ships for war, etc, would take LESS time than getting 150K troops out?

Of course, FDR was president then. Bush is president now. We probably have to account for utter horrible incompetence and malfeasance. But yes, it's certainly possible for the US to withdraw its troops in 6 months, especially with a Dem as president, because they do tend to be competent, and that you find it so inconceivable only shows how blinkered your perspective is.

Iraq might fall apart. That will happen whenever and however we leave. It'll probably happen if we don't leave. Probably the only way to keep it from happening is to get in the time-travel machine and go back and don't invade Iraq and leave Saddam in charge of his sad, dwindling little kingdom-- not a great choice, perhaps, but the Iraqis might actually prefer it.

There is no reason why we can't march, fly, drive, 150K troops out in a month. This is the United States of America, and it's 2007. Do you think we're still in the time of the Crusades, when there weren't C-130s?

Besides, if Bush weren't such a blockhead, and you pundits were doing more than carping at debates and actually thinking forward, the planning would have been done for an exit by the time some sensible Democrat has a chance (Jan 2009) to do the withdrawal.

I know it seems like Bush will be dictator forever, but you and the rest of us can start planning for a day when he's gone. Jan 2009, since you're still thinking impeachment is insane. The next president will probably start planning the withdrawal in summer 08 (that is, as soon as the Dem convention is over and his/her election is close to certain), and so will the military. The very relieved military. The withdrawal will go as well as can be expected, given the cockup Bush has made.

I know, however, that we can count on you to carp that it's not going fast enough. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, you know!

Good news with this new gimmick of having viewers ask the tough questions all your time Joe is free to really get into the Washington social whirl.Next correspondents dinner maybe you could be dancing with Karl Rove.Can you figure out Joe why this format is going to catch on?The main reason is that people all across America realize that you in the media do not ask the tough questions.Joe wait for a slow dance.

lister: :)

Stilling a thought from last night about Darfur: WE CAN, BECAUSE WE MUST.

Using different parameters to define the mission will generate a different plan.

Posted by Diego the immigrant
ama: Just a quick note. Whose blonde hair? Edwards has brown hair so the grey would show. And the President, while he has many many negatives, being a dimmwit is not one. Just to let you know he actually had higher entrance score and a higher four-year GPA at Yale than his 2004 opponent did. And a higher GPA at comparable university, than his 2000 opponent. And the congress rating is at 25% or lower not the President's which is low but not the lowest ever by far. Also while he did not :( serve in Vietnam he did fly Air Force jets. Less than 1% percent of people who try to qualifiy for that make it. Sorry for the grammer mistakes. English not my native language
****
Diego,
I will concede that maybe the color on my teevee is screwy since someone above said Hillary's coat/jacket/blouse/whatever was pink. On my teevee it was Halloween Orange.

Edwards' hair is more blonde than brown from where I sit, and gray hair does NOT stand out much in blonde hair until there is more gray than blonde.

Anyhow, Joe's suggestion was ridiculous, knowing that he would be covering up the gray rather than adding more if he paid the stylist big bucks.

President Malfunction is without a doubt the biggest dimwit to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you are still defending this dumbazz when his numbers are down to 25%, then you aren't any smarter than he is, regardless of whether you use good English "grammer" or good spelling.

Welcome to Merika, Diego, where you have the right to remain dumb or not and to support a dimwit or not.

Cheers!

Oops, my bad: should be 'distilling a thought'

grape_crush

I am glad that you made nice with that Anon fellow. We don't need potential further recruits to our left side driven off by open hostility toward newcomers. We need all the people we can get so we can continue toward our goals of IMPEACHMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICES, and LEAVING IRAQ.

Thanks for doing your part!

ama: on my Teebee Edwards' hair is slightly auburn, like the kind of brown hair that gets reddish when you've been in the sun a lot [his walk through poverty] and Hil's jacket was a 'hot salmon'.

Just a thought: Why is it that Obama comes to an issue after it has been 'campaign tested/generated' by others?

The latest being when he addressed the 'school kids killed in S. Chi' about a week after AC360 did a major report on the situation.

grape_crush

I am glad that you made nice with that Anon fellow. We don't need potential further recruits to our left side driven off by open hostility toward newcomers. We need all the people we can get so we can continue toward our goals of IMPEACHMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICES, and LEAVING IRAQ.

Thanks for doing your part!

grape_crush

I am glad that you made nice with that Anon fellow. We don't need potential further recruits to our left side driven off by open hostility toward newcomers. We need all the people we can get so we can continue toward our goals of IMPEACHMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICES, and LEAVING IRAQ.

Thanks for doing your part!

It was very important for the presidential candidates to address the questions from YouTube and the general public. However, thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House. There are critical topics of great importance that I would like to see our candidate address in the future, especially with global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.” And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Mstessyrue: If I acknowledge you constant cut an paste of the same 'MDP', will you stop posting it?

It has become spam.

linda,
With the variations in color on Hillary's jacket and on Edwards' hair, I think in the future, we should all just stay away from comments regarding the color of anything on teevee. We'll stick with size, shape, and substance to be safe.

I can't answer your "qwestun" regarding what Obama does, but Bill Clinton got blamed for the same thing throughout his presidency.

I've NOT been paying close attention to the presidential campaign or the candidates within the last week or so, so I'm not one to be asking
about Obama. Sorry.

I didn't even get to watch the entire debate last night.

Some of the other regulars here could probably 'splain it.

Gotta run now.

Take care! :)

Mstessyrue:

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to end poverty. do you realize that we could build 8 less B-2 bombers for global neoimperialism and have the money to end global poverty? This would be the social justice that we democrats hold near to our hearts. I for one would be willing to pay a lot more income tax if that money would be used to help the rest of the world instead of subjugating it.

Official Word from Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon:
Planning for Iraq is based on the 'Korean Model'.

There was a plan for Iraq?
The only plan there needs to be now is how quickly can we mobilize the civilian airlines to fly out all our troops by next week?

"There was a plan for Iraq?"

No. There was basically no organized, pre-invasion plan for postwar Iraq. Take a look at these pages from Tom Ricks' book *Fiasco*. Several times people say "there was no Phase IV plan":

http://tinyurl.com/338mmx

And what planning we did have was so sloppy, the president was asking Jay Garner what his plans were JUST A WEEK BEFORE THE WAR:

****GARNER: So then I briefed the president the second week in March on what our organization was like and what--

PBS: What were the president's concerns? What kind of questions was he asking?

GARNER: The first thing he asked me, he wanted me to tell him about myself. I told him my background, and Secretary Rumsfeld told him my background.

Then he began asking me questions. "OK, what are you going to do during reconstruction?"****

http://tinyurl.com/2yrzhp

The YouTube format didn't add very much to the discourse. It touched on all the big issues, but offered candidates to make what they wanted of the questions. You could tell that the candidates had their talking points ready as soon as it was clear which subject the question addressed.

As far as substance goes, it was broad strokes. Few follow-ups or challenges. I thought Wolf Blitzer's moderation (minus the "simon says") was much more effective. As far as style goes, there were some canned attempts to capture "YouTube" -- inane songs, e.g..

I didn't learn very much about the candidates. If anything, Hillary won points for me because of her effortless competence in matters of foreign policy.

I find it intresting that republicans are monitoring the democractic debates. Worried????As well, you should be!

Go Obama\Clinton presidency.

Clinton's statement on 'foreign leaders' betrays an insecurity about the United States' power, suggesting that somehow we can look stupid or weak by talking to Iran, Syria, etc. Obama figures we're the strongest, why does talking to these countries hurt? How can that damage us?!

The more Hilary sounds like neo-cons, the more she's praised for her judiciousness and her ability to appear 'presidential.' Yeah- she's presidential when she says things like that- she's just like our current president.

"Clinton's statement on 'foreign leaders' betrays an insecurity about the United States' power, suggesting that somehow we can look stupid or weak by talking to Iran, Syria, etc. Obama figures we're the strongest, why does talking to these countries hurt? How can that damage us?!"

Engagement is a big carrot. Neither carrots nor sticks should be employed frivolously. There's a place for dialogue, but only within reason. Would you support dialogue with Darfur warlords?

Yes. we tell them what we think they should do, they tell us what they want from us...they don't like what they hear or we don't so it's not productive. an unproductive meeting is not a bad thing, is it? How does that harm anything?

After watching the CNN/Youtube debate, I realized a few things:

1) Americans ask stupid questions.
2) Most Americans have no real problems.
3) Google should run for President.
4) Most Americans are ugly.
5) There is no difference between news and entertainment.

America lost.

I just wanted to tell you guys I won't be posting here anymore. I've decided that to support this war from my comfy home is not the way to go. I've enlisted and will be going to boot camp in 2 weeks, its time for me to sacrifice for this great country that I love so much. Just kidding! I'm going to spend the rest of the day masturbating to diaper porn and eating Little Debbie's snack cakes....oh, and posting lots of intelligent commentary here. For instance: STUPID LIBTARDS NOONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK!

Byron: I agree that a Obama/Hillary ticket will be the greatest thing ever. You sound like a strong, very intelligent liberal man. Would you like to meet?

You libtards don't get it. It doesn't matter what the CIA or the Pentagon does, its all in Christ's hands anyway. We are losing this war because of gay marriage and violent video games. Al Qaeda is the least of our worries as long as Hollywood liberals are trying to turn our childrens gay.

archie - where can I find some of those men who turned gay due to my heroes in Hollywood?

archie stanson, you are the reason that conservatives and moderates are afraid of a far left communist (Kucinich, for example) in the White House. Congratulations. How do you feel?

Neocons should fear us, we are the heart and soul of the DNC. Nothing happens unless it is by our leave. We are the party of San Francisco! We are the party of Pelosi! WE ARE THE LIBERALS! and we will be your leaders come next November and we will save you from the neocons.

Join us.

Obama's tin ear. Did he not hear the question?

In Tuesday's two-hour debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"I would," he responded.

Clinton said she would not.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said.

"If you look back at real breakthroughs and diplomatic history, what you basically find is that in order to understand where the situation is, to clear the underbrush away, it is necessary to have lower level people make the initial contact," Albright said.

He's a follish young man.

I'm a catholic preistophile.

Seriously we need to ban whoever is faking archie stanson's name. Is it some republican trying to make liberals look bad?

The whole Pacific ocean wasn't mined, lister. There wasn't just one port to funnel every man and piece of equipment through. And you're grossly exaggerating the effect of Pearl Harbor on the Navy, which wasn't nearly as worn down as the Army is now.

Evacuating Iraq can't be done in 6 months under even the most competent president, even if Iraq's neighbors open their borders to the hundreds of thousands of US personnel/auxilaries/Iraqi collaborators and the millions of tons of equipment and supplies that have to be evacuated under fire.

Anon

All we need to do is fly the troops out on all the civilian airliners for as long as it takes to get them. we should leave the equipment behind. we just need to end the killing now.

Dan - how dare you say Obama is foolish. He is the best man for the job and saying hurtful things toward my main man Obama is hurtful and racist. Stop it or face my wrath!

"Dodd-He always sounds like a Senator."

Good or bad?

"You can't pull the troops out of Iraq in 6 months."

Yes, we can. The Air Force has plans for just that, according to Air Force Col. Jeffrey Mintzlaff, chief contingency planner for the U.S. Transportation Command.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/22/america/NA-GEN-Iraq-Coming-Home.php

"How long would an Iraq pullout take?

"Six months is what is talked about around here," Mintzlaff said from Scott Air Force Base, Illinois."

There you have it.