Heroes Trashed

Posted by Northern Observer
August 24, 2007

But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this? Why haven't they embraced the grunts from the 82nd the way the Republicans have embraced the "liberal" Brookings scholars? It's just very frustrating and truly outrageous.

Yes and No.
When has the traditional media ever backed up a Democratic politician when it comes to national security matters? Especially when the option is withdrawl? NEVER.
In many ways, the American people have the Democratic Party they deserve. Only when old dogs retire and new minds come into the party will the attitude change. With the number of vets running under the Dem banner this change is coming fast. We saw some in 2006 by 2010 there will be a more confident tone.

But you can't pistol whip Democrats for 30 years as being too dovish, wimps, naive, pro commie, etc ...over National Security and expect them to lead the charge when you need them to be the voice of reason. It's hypocritical. Frustrating, yes. Outrageous? Nope.

Posted by James, Los Angeles
August 24, 2007

Joe.

You have written a series of outstanding and informative posts this past week on the issues around the occupation. Thanks for that. Your insight has been very useful. What do you really think is the story with the feckless Dems?

Posted by Attaturk
August 24, 2007

Amen to the last paragraph.

But also a boo to media like CNN and MSNBC who -- outside Olbermann -- when they have mentioned these troops at all have trashed them as naive or inappropriate for speaking up at all.

Meanwhile, both CNN & MSNBC & FOX naturally, gave O'Hanlon & Pollack's inanity a full week of bloviating.

Posted by maryo
August 24, 2007

Thank you for some sanity.

Posted by Florida
August 24, 2007

Why on earth is The Weekly Standard given any sort of consideration in any national conversation any more? It's track record is awful and it's writers are a bunch of crank conspiracy theorists and kooks. If they were forced to rely on the free market to support themselves, they'd close shop tomorrow. Yet they're given spots on every talk show and gab fest you can think of. It boggles the mind how bizarre D.C. insider culture is.

Posted by joyc
August 24, 2007

We need to stop whining about the media and its "lack" of support for Democrats and start creating our own dialog.

Democrats appear weak when all they do is whine and not put forward an alternative agenda.

Yes I know one exists but they need a spokesperson or representative to be reciting it like a mantra anytime there is a microphone around (like the Republicans do)

Mark my words if this does not change we will have another GOP president in 2008.

Rove was right about one thing, people do not want a 10 min explaination about terrorism - just a 30 second slogan.

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

It's predictable, isn't it? You would think someone would be a step ahead of this.

Thank you, Joe.

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

The Democrats need a purge of their "leadership"; Pelosi/Reid/Dean/et al. need to go for some folks with spines.

sean s.

Posted by Jim J
August 24, 2007

This is all much simpler than everyone is trying to make it. The Dems are just as much in the pocket of the AIPA/Project for a New American Century bunch as the Republicans are.

The Dems know what they SHOULD be doing but are held hostage by their prior commitments. Hence their usual deer in the headlights look whenever they talk about this stupid war.

2008 will be 1968 all over again. Ron Paul's going to end up getting enough of the anti-war vote to hand the election to the Republican nominee.

In a way, Bush was right the other day: We will be in Iraq at least a decade, so it is just like Vietnam.

Posted by Jim J
August 24, 2007

The above should read AIPAC of course.

Posted by Remember how we got there! Remember 9/11
August 24, 2007

As we come close to another sad anniversary of the biggest deception and enabled disasters of our times ... Mr. Klein, care to make at least ONE, sincere, logical, informed and honest comment about this? - h t t p : //video dot google dot com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145 ... Why is the MSM so terrified about even discussing this subject?
THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11 2 hr 18 min

Posted by thepilotswife
August 24, 2007

There's an important distinction to be pointed out...

This group of vets WERE previously in Iraq...The HEROES of the 82nd Airborne ARE in Iraq!!!

Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
August 24, 2007

Joe - Excellent posts recently on this topic, thank you.

I would be interested to know what you think about Kevin Drum's metrics that Elvis mentioned in the thread below.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_08/011931.php
I find both sets -- Violence and Infrastructure very interesting.

I would also like your opinion on whether the neo-cons will persuade Bush that he must bomb Iran. I am increasingly dismayed by all the talk.

Posted by David Helms
August 24, 2007

James from LA praises Joe.

I am generally Atriosian in my point of view on many of the pieces that Joe has done in the past, and on the performance of the media in general. However, I would like to second this praise and recognition for what I feel Joe has provided as a strongly-voiced, rational response to the irrational, pathetic and desperate political maneuvering of the administration this week on Iraq.

I flatter myself into thinking that I'm not just praising Joe when he voices opinions in accord with my own. Rather, I think that Joe's strong performance this week means that I will be more opinion to his positions, even when I may disagree.

Thanks Joe, keep it up.

Posted by Jim
August 24, 2007

I am a Democrat. Yet, once again, the Democrats have shown that they care little for the troops. Ask these 82d Airborne soldiers what political party they belong to, and they will tell you Republican. When I was in the Army, I was nearly the only Democrat. No matter how bad the soldiers are being screwed in Iraq, they will all still vote Republican in 2008. Why? Because the Democrats are anathema.

Posted by LnGrrrR
August 24, 2007

I'm not sure if it's my opinion or not, but we need SOMEBODY to be talking about the elephant in the room, don't we?

I mean, I fully expect Republicans to use every sleazy tactic in the book, but Democrats seem so afraid that they don't even want to step to the dance.

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
August 24, 2007

IMPEACH THE WEEKLY STANDARD FOR MEAN OP-ED PIECE!

Posted by Alan
August 24, 2007

Joe's recent posts on Iraq are thoughtful and sometimes provocative. I think we are missing something about the Pollack-O'Hanlon circus. The bookers at CNN and MSNBC respond to pressure and lobbying. That is why you see a co-ordinated appearance on several shows in the morning. Today Kristol was on Today and Fox dishing out the usual bilge. Matt Lauer just was not up to the task. He tried to act tough but he is more interested in playing the game. No passion, no spirit of inquiry, no scepticism. This guy gets three minutes so here goes.

The SEVEN don't have someone pushing them, and being in the army and acting responsibly, they are not out there seeking attention. Thay had their say. It is up to us to give it widespread currency. Why not an ad reading their letter? Democrats can surely find the money for that. Surely some can get a youtube going with the letter being read by vets now out of the army? of family? a or Mrs Tillman? This is a tough game and we have to play.

Posted by Florida
August 24, 2007

Here's one that merits more tracking down. Money we paid to Iraq was looted from the country by Allawi, who's now hiring right-wing lobbyists to push to put him back in power. It's like a collossal daisy chain of ineptitude.

More from the Muckraker:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003990.php

Posted by Terrapin
August 24, 2007

Joe - You wrote: "But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this?"

I can answer your question.

Any Dem that takes a strong position is instantly isolated and vulnerable. The reason for this is the existence of the Democratic Blue Dogs (eg: Bush Dogs), the lack of a supporting media environment and, yes, organizations like the DLC that make a habit of scolding Democrats in order to appear bipartisan and serious.

And this is not even considering the presidential campaign.

The GOP, on the other hand, has a media organization that spans the airwaves, television stations, newspapers and magazines. They have a bizarre tendency to follow eachother no matter where they are headed, and they have a vast network of think tanks that exist to form rhetorical arguments to back up even the craziest of policies. And all of these things are mandated to push a single ideology that has lost all bearings to reality.

I know you know all of this and yet you continue to not understand why Democrats act the way that they do. I am not asking you to praise a Democrat just for the sake of party unity - that is what the conservative media does. All I am asking is that you not be surprised when a Democrat does not take the strident stand that you wish he/she would. They would receive fire from all sides and then we would be asking rhetorical questions about why the Dems are such suckers for punishment.

If you want courageous politicians then you have to have the infrastructure to support them. The conservatives have spent forty years building theirs and as a result the GOP legislators can continue to support a failed policy without much consequence. They can also make specious claims and ridiculous arguments without fear or shame. Consent has been manufactured for them.

Posted by KYJurisDoctor
August 24, 2007

As for Pace's comments on Iraq withdrawal: Why did he have to wait until he was let go, to voice the opinion? Kinda reminds me of George Tenet.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-general-pace-on-his-way-out-as-jcos.html#links

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
August 24, 2007

"wrote about...the unreliability of our Iraqi allies."

What the Historically Stunted 7 wrote, Say Joe, was an open invitation for more attacks on our loyal troops, by the terror scum so often enabled by the willing dipshiite Western press, never mind whatever Al Jazeera is spewing as "news".

They should be hit with every applicable Article in the UCMJ, as their rantings rate right up their with Kerry's lies before Congress about our troops in Vietnam, as another low moment in myopic non-military history that just ended up getting more people killed.

But we understand, even those with a broken moral and political compass are free to speak (out of uniform), even if only for themselves and not the vast majority of troops and their families that want to WIN THIS WAR -- so they don't have to do it all over again, for a third time, in another 12 years.

When so explained, even Nancy Pelosi's grandkids get IS.

Posted by Derek
August 24, 2007

I don't know who is more disappointing Reid or Pelosi. However, it is obvious that there is no leadership in the Party at the moment.

Posted by Todd and in Charge
August 24, 2007

Joe, you're starting to write insightful pieces in consecutive order. Thanks for raising your game.

Posted by 80%
August 24, 2007

where are the democrats?
1.they know we dont look like losers unless we withdraw. Its Colbert logic. Its not chaos and a full bore genocidal civil war, its "progress amidst sectarian violence"
2if they force a withdrawal, even if suckered in by Warner, they will (unfairly) own the defeatocrat chaos
3 but if we are mostly there a year from now the Rs get blamed
4 if they withdraw and dont "redeploy" they lose the pro israeli campaign contributions and primary support

So dont play stupid, it seems pretty obvious. only the highly principaled could overcome a compelling list like that

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
August 24, 2007

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military commander in one of the more troubled areas of Iraq said Friday that embracing Sen. John Warner's call to begin troop withdrawals before the end of the year would be "a giant step backward."

Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of troops south of Baghdad, said that in such a scenario, militants pushed from his sector in recent operations would quickly return.

"If coalition soldiers were to leave, having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what'd happen is the enemy would come back," said Lynch.

"He'd start building the bombs again, he'd start attacking the locals again and he'd start exporting that violence into Baghdad and we would take a giant step backward," Lynch told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Iraq.

He said that recent gains resulted from the buildup of troops in Iraq and that he needs all the forces he has until Iraqis are able to step up and take over, perhaps some time next year.

Lynch was asked to respond to comments by Warner that President Bush should announce at least a small reduction in forces by Christmas.

...

Doing a pre-mature withdrawal, Clinton Somalia style, just leads to another Rwanda, another Boat People massacre, another Killing Fields, another Stalinist state at the edge of Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and lower Arabia.

Lynch, Petreus, Odierno, and the Weekly Standard signers (note that the NY Timid would NOT publish their reply to the Stunted 7) have it right.

Too bad it has taken 4 years to move from open looting to offensive surge, at a horrific cost -- but we wouldn't want to have been called Nazis for shooting victimless looters, right Euro-media? Send your civilian management complaints to the MisState Department, care of Uncle Joe Wilson.

Our major mistake was not removing Saddam and his SOB's after Gulf I. Plenty of blame for that too, on all sides.

ACT GLOBALLY. FREEDOM GLOBALLY. PEACE GLOBALLY.

Accept no shrill, strident socialist substitutes.

Posted by Derek
August 24, 2007

Given that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism by a full 700%, and given that the Republicans, and the trolls here, want the war to continue forever one can only draw one conclusion.

"Republicans hate America, especially the soldiers dying on their behalf."

Posted by Moderate, Centrist Hero
August 24, 2007

Derek there is no question that Republicans want America to lose the war against terrorism. That is the only logical conclusion one can draw.

Posted by QUESTOIN HILARY
August 24, 2007

OMG MY PRESCRIPTIONS RAN OUT!!! TEH FREEDOMZ!!1! IRAQ 4EVAH!!!!11!1!

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
August 24, 2007

Second everything that James, Los Angeles and others have said. Thanks for your insight on the military and political lay of the land.

And what's the deal with Democrats? They just have skittishness embedded in their DNA, and they're unable to stand up to a hated president and a hated war.

I think Matthew Yglesias made a nice catch here, which indicates just how conditioned the Democrats are to expecting everything that happens to be bad for Dems and good for the GOP:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/policy_failure_good_for_the_go.php

Posted by Bows & Flows of Leftist Crap
August 24, 2007

The liberals are of course fully invested in failure in Iraq (as with most other U.S. overseas conflicts of merit) and for purely domestic political reasons, i.e. appeasing soccer motherhood now at the expense of the entire nation and our true allies later.

Any notion of actually winning a war (even a war against terrorism and despotism) they find mentally and often physically sickening, going against their natural tendency to withdraw from anything that smacks of danger or conflict, no matter the cause.

Thankfully, we have intelligent, brave, and self-less souls that still get The Big Picture, get up at 5 in the morning every day, say good-bye to their family and friends for months at a time (if they come back whole at all), and force themselves into the necessary places that need attention, no matter the potential problems or added sacrifices.

Anyone like Klein or Murtha or Pelosi or the other Kos Klowns that thinks our bugging out from Baghdad will somehow "support" the troops has ZERO perspective, historically, and no compass morally, given the time and effort and pain our armed forces have expended -- and will continue to expend, even after Saddam and Bin Laden and the murdering mullahs are history, which they will be, no help from the press -- and no valid platform from which to speak.

In short, the loon left remains irrelevant at best, and a direct threat to our national security at worst.

And you can quote me on that.

Posted by eddie-george
August 24, 2007

From their own admission, none of the Standard's writers have been in Iraq this year. Yet their argument pretty much amounts to: the 82nd Airborne guys are wrong because they aren't part of the surge.

And the fact is, they do not address directly any of the points raised in the Times piece. So whilst they call their piece "Iraq Vets Respond", it doesn't respond to anything; it just bundles together a jumble of Pentagon press releases and hopes to sound better than a firsthand account.

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Terrapin wrote: "Any Dem that takes a strong position is instantly isolated and vulnerable. The reason for this is the existence of the Democratic Blue Dogs (eg: Bush Dogs), the lack of a supporting media environment and, yes, organizations like the DLC that make a habit of scolding Democrats in order to appear bipartisan and serious."

... and this is because the Democratic leadership is weak and ineffective; the leadership vacuum at the party leaves plenty of space for the Blue Dogs to dominate.

Terrapin wrote, ""The GOP, on the other hand, has a media organization that spans the airwaves ... ... They can also make specious claims and ridiculous arguments without fear or shame. Consent has been manufactured for them."

All true, but none if this happened inevitably; it happened because the Democrats, under inept and complacent leadership, let it happen by not vigorously contesting the issues. Republicans are not inherently better organized, they just are better lead right now; and the main-stream media, terrified of being called liberal, has been cowed into complicity with conservatives. Blaming the demise of liberalism on conservative media is a form of denial; that somehow liberalism is a 'victim'. It ain't. It's been hoisted by it's own petard.

Terrapin wrote, "If you want courageous politicians then you have to have the infrastructure to support them." Courageous politicians create their own buzz; the infrastructure to support them is already there; not in the MSM (which has lost credibility anyway) but it's there.

The Democrats need a purge.

sean s.

Posted by Jim C.
August 24, 2007

Joe,

You ask a good question, "But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this?"

You ask it ... here? I'm not a Democratic politician. Neither is anyone else who commented, or else they might have felt compelled to identify themselves - it's in their nature.

You claim to be a reporter. As an employee of (or perhaps independent contrator affiliated with) Time magazine, do you not have access to a phone? Call some Democratic politicians. You're "Joe Klein." Surely they'll take your call?

Ask them.

Until then, I'll be out on the corner, doing my best Joe Klein impression: I'll be asking that same question to the cars that pass by. Amazingly, it'll have the same effect.

Posted by Terrapin
August 24, 2007

sean samis - Thanks for the reply.

We are not necessarily disagreeing with each other on all of these points. I think Dem leadership also need to shape up and figure out how to fight back. I am not trying to excuse Dem behavior just explain it. But I do disagree with your take on the GOP media machine.

The Democrats simply do not have anything like it. The Progressive Netroots is making an effort - and has, by some accounts, resulted in the internet being dominated by Progressives - but it is a small part of the overall infrastructure needed to counter what the conservatives have built. And even so, most of the MSM gets its news from Drudge.

Conservatives have enormous funding, a wide base of think tanks to churn out rhetorical positions and the media personalities to spout them, newspapers, magazines, direct mail, AM radio and most of cable news. Personalities from these outlets have seeped their way into the mainstream news sources with no opposing views presented.

The MSM may have lost credibility with you and me but it is still the dominant source of information for the majority of people in the country. And they will vote according to the lies that they are being told.

If courageous politicians create their own buzz then why hasn't Sen. Feingold been more successful? He needs a bigger, less abusive megaphone. So I say, let's do both things: Get rid of the Dems afraid to fight and help to build a countervailing force to the conservative media machine.

Posted by bartkid
August 24, 2007

>But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this?

Mr. Klein,
The concern trollerism, it burns!!!1!!

Google "Patrick Murphy", "Paul Hackett", "Tammy Duckworth" to see how embracing Democrats are of Iraq vets into their ranks.

>Why haven't they embraced the grunts from the 82nd the way the Republicans have embraced the "liberal" Brookings scholars?
The easy answer is that it is easy to embrace sock puppets.

Posted by TomT
August 24, 2007

Thanks, Joe, for calling like it is. I wish more in the media had the guts to do the same.

Did you see the Batiste opinion piece at Think Progress as well?

Posted by linda
August 24, 2007

Where are the DEMs? You got that right.

Reid needs to filibuster and Pelosi needs to only let legislation with teeth in it on the floor.

Where's Obama on the Dole-Shalala VA-DoD report, he's on the VA committee?

Hil, for all 'I'm your Girl' is triangulating. If she's seriously the 'leader' why isn't she herding the Catz?

The media can't get to Sadr City to interview these guys. So, we'll stick with the Good News potlickers. Besides, I bet these guys aren't Ivy League. If they were, they either wouldn't be serving or they wouldn't be NCOs.

How's Pfc. Murphy doing?

Posted by Frank
August 24, 2007

A lot of posters are upset with the Dems and probably upset with the Republicans too. I think most would agree isn't much difference between them, they just politicians. Since most of the country has concluded that neither party is working for their best interests and a third party is not a reality what to do? The answer may be so simple it eludes us. Vote for the other guy regardless of party. I leave it to your imagination what would happen if all every congressman (or most) and 1/3 the senate were to go down in defeat.

Posted by Anonymous
August 24, 2007

You ask where are your so called Democratic "leaders"

- on Nancy Pelosi's taxpayer funded jet no doubt

Here is where they are.
Read and learn.
Liberals read and learn the truth.
Joe read and learn how to write.
This will be beneficial to all.

Liberals, if this piece causes issues, all you have to do is close your eyes, spin wildly and scream "Iran-Contra! Iran-Contra!" until you feel better.

Anyway...
_________________________________________________

A Clear Path?
By Oliver North
August 24, 2007

This week in Kansas City, Mo., the commander in chief received something he's not getting a lot of lately: multiple standing ovations. The applause came from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) when he told their convention, "A free Iraq" is within reach and that "here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see things differently." Leaving no doubt where he stands, President Bush added: "We will support our troops, we will support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed."

Here in Spain, the country that pulled its troops out of the Iraq coalition in 2004 after terrorists bombed Madrid's transit system, our president's words aren't getting any accolades.

What Europeans say about American presidents and their policies shouldn't really matter. None of them pays U.S. taxes or casts ballots in our elections. But that doesn't prevent our political and media elites from citing "Euro-opinions" to shore up their own positions. That's why we should expect to hear a lot of care and concern from Democrats about what the Europeans think of us in this presidential election campaign. What we're not hearing from Democrats is any consistency about what they would do about Iraq if they win the White House.

Perhaps the Euro-critics who are so willing to condemn America, President Bush and our troops in Iraq don't think the outcome in Mesopotamia matters to them. Or maybe, like much of our mainstream media, the Euros simply want "anybody but Bush" in the White House. But if that's the way they think, they ought to care about what the Democrats' position on the war really is. I know I can't figure it out.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading contender for the Democratic nomination, told the VFW conventioneers gathered in Kansas City that the surge is "working." But then she added: "We're just years too late in changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war." She concluded that the best way to honor U.S. forces is "by beginning to bring them home." She did not specify just where her "new war" might be or how bringing our troops home honors them.

Former Sen. John Edwards didn't even bother to show up for the VFW. His campaign simply released a statement reminding supporters that he wants "an immediate reduction of 40,000 to 50,000 troops to stop the surge and get all regional parties to begin to find a political solution." He also wants "all combat troops to be withdrawn within the next year." That, his campaign says, will "finally put Iraq on the path to stability." He doesn't say how.

And then there's Sen. Barack Obama, widely considered to be in second place in the Democratic horse race. Obama apparently has become a new believer in the efficacy of military force. He told the veterans, "If we put 30,000 additional troops into Baghdad, it will quell some of the violence short term." But then he added, "All of our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq," and "one reason to stop fighting the wrong war is so that we can fight the right war against terrorism and extremism." Though Obama failed to specify exactly where this "right war" is to be fought, one can presume it may be in Pakistan, a place he offered to bomb during a debate last month.

Or perhaps the "right war" is in Afghanistan. Two weeks ago in a campaign appearance, the senator from Illinois suggested that we need more troops to back up the Karzai government in Kabul: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air raiding (sic) villages and killing civilians, which is (sic) causing enormous problems there."

Obama concluded his remarks to the veterans by observing, "That is why I have pushed for a careful and responsible redeployment of troops engaged in combat operations out of Iraq, joined with direct and sustained diplomacy in the region."

Unfortunately for those seeking it, clarity on the war isn't found in other Democrats either. In an interview this week with the Detroit Free Press, Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, conceded the troop surge was working, but then added that the democratically elected government of Iraq is "nonfunctional" and that "I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office." Levin has said repeatedly that he wants to begin withdrawing U.S. forces by the end of this year.

Those are the positions of leading Democrats on the war. As we say at FOX News Channel: "We report, you decide." I sure can't.

Posted by magisterludi
August 24, 2007

bartkid- Murphy, Duckworth, and Hackett all ran as Dems in solidly GOP districts. They lost because the GOP didn't support these vets, not the dems. Google that.

Posted by Boxer
August 24, 2007

Sigh - the Democrats have embraced our heroes- long and frequently and especially these of the 82nd.

Sadly, Mr. Klein - the circles in which you run don't let you hear anything outside your silly echo chamber. Get out into America.
We are coming to change DC - and then you will understand how silly your comment is

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Terrapin asked, "If courageous politicians create their own buzz then why hasn't Sen. Feingold been more successful? He needs a bigger, less abusive megaphone."

As a citizen of Wisconsin, I am very proud of Senator Feingold. In state he's been very successful. He doesn't need to run for President to be successful; keeping his seat is a Red/Blue state is enough.

Terrapin wrote, "So I say, let's do both things: Get rid of the Dems afraid to fight and help to build a countervailing force to the conservative media machine."

I agree, but we'll need to get rid of the dead wood first, otherwise the liberal media machine will have nothing to work with. Our "disagreement" such as it may be, is more about style than substance.

sean s.

Posted by Keven Bennett
August 24, 2007

The *large majority* American people will have to see through these continuing "delay and divert" tactics practiced by the Adminstration before the Dems have the power to do much of anything.

Right now, they don't even have enough votes to maintain a filibuster, let alone override a veto and the discourse can't be forced into a discussion of "what do you mean by victory?" or "what do you mean by a big step backward?" so what do you expect? Miracles?

A majority of American people don't seem to understand that even though the 2006 "voter's revolt" passing power to the Dems in the House and Sentate represented a radical realignment of political power, it was not enough to change the course this Adminstration.

It will take supermajorities to neutralize their wish to prosecute this war. Nothing else will do.

This business of "where are the DEMs" is pointless! Until actual political power changes hands, these wackos will continue to fire away with their big guns: override-proof vetos and executive privelege.

Loose this "off with their heads!" middle-management mentality and get to the meat of the issue!

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

How does up get to be down? How is it that Reality "isn't the way the world works anymore"?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/040927.php

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Keven Bennett wrote, "This business of 'where are the DEMs' is pointless! Until actual political power changes hands, these wackos will continue to fire away with their big guns: override-proof vetos and executive privelege.

Loose this 'off with their heads!' middle-management mentality and get to the meat of the issue!"

And with inept and timid leaders, why would the American people give power to the Democrats? I would submit that the reason the Democrats are powerless is that they are ineffectual; not the otherway around.

sean s.

Posted by KOS KIDZ
August 24, 2007

Wanna know who else is a hero? Me that's who. I killed 100 terrorists in my backyard, this time I wasn't playing Jack Bauer, I was Chuck Norris!

Mom made smores and after a glass of milk I killed 100 more!

Also, I saved the lives of a family of gerbils who made a home up my @ss. Having forgotten that I put a male and female up there, I was notified while being gang banged at the College Republican party. I don't usually like girls much but there was this one girl there, she was the only one, and she gave me her phone number...her name is Brownback girl. There's something about her...I told her right off the back though that I would leave her in second for Fred Thompson. I WANT THAT MAN INSIDE ME NOW!!!!!!!

Posted by Tom
August 24, 2007

Joe Klein: "But where on earth are the Democratic politicians on this? Why haven't they embraced the grunts from the 82nd ...?" This has to be a rhetorical question, right? The Democrats haven't embraced America's troops because the Democrat party has embraced the enemy's troops. Have any other easy questions that need easy answers?

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

Yes, Tom, we're all here rooting for the enemy's troops.

This is the kind of pure crap that passes for discourse on the right.

Posted by Derek
August 24, 2007

The Bush Dogs, or Neville Chamberlain wing of the Democratic Party are a big part of the problem. They are still under the illusion that there are reasonable conservatives left in the Republican Party. As we all know that breed died a long time ago and the radicalization of the Republicans has only intensified under Bush and Rove. There is no reasoning, or middle ground with these fanatics. One need not look any further than the trolls on this site for evidence. They hate our guts, and we should act accordingly.

Posted by MIS, Philadelphia
August 24, 2007

magisterludi and "bartkid- Murphy, Duckworth, and Hackett all ran as Dems in solidly GOP districts. They lost because the GOP didn't support these vets, not the dems. Google that."

Patrick Murphy won his heavily GOP district and he's doing just fine.

http://www.patrickmurphy.house.gov/

Posted by Michael L. Wagner
August 24, 2007

In 1979, the Soviet Union's 40th Army was deployed to Afghasistan in response to an official request from the govt. The Mujahideen responded with sabotage: damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines, blowing up govt. offices, ect. In mid-1987, the Soviets began to withdraw their forces; the price of occupation proved too high: the toll in casualties, economic reserves, and loss of support at home...
But the US has learned the proper lesson there--placate the local warlords by turning a blind eye to their opium crop...
My point: we've done the same thing here at home: instead of stocking morphine in pharmacys, it's stacked up next to cash registers... BIG OOPS--I meant the important ingredient in methamphetamine...
Christ--when the cops aren't advertising the fact that anyone can buy an assault rifle capable of shooting through two police cars, they're conspiring to brutally assault demonstration organizers...
We have a two term president who never won a Presidential Election (see the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the 2000 Florida Presidential Election irregularities, Rolling Stone Magazine, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?); evidently, the Domocratic candidates are too busy rewiring the electronic voting machines to attend to much else!!!

Posted by Proud Liberal Vet
August 24, 2007

I suggest that all of my fellow liberals begin arming themselves for the war that is surely coming in America. Whoever said that the Right hates Liberals is absolutely correct. The day they started calling me a traitor for not supporting their lies and war I started stock piling bullets. I'm just praying for the day one of those creeps break down my door.

Posted by Keven Bennett
August 24, 2007

Well, Sean, who ELSE can they give power to?

The Republicans?

How do YOU define "victory"?
How do YOU define "defeat"?

C'mon! Speak up! Can YOU put lipstick on this pig??? Or can YOU turn a pig into an eagle?

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
August 24, 2007

Cellblock Secrets...by Question Hillary

So who were those lovebirds seen canoodling near the library Saturday nite? Sources say it was none other than D Wing celebrity couple Randall 'Duck' Cunningham and La Familia shot-caller Jesus Villegas. Last week 'the Duck' told us he and Jesus were hot and heavy and committed to a monagamous relationship though he did add "We have an understanding that if Rick Renzi ever shows up he gets a pass". Well Jesus may be a prison big shot but he'll have lots of competition for the beauticious Renzi should he show, and sources are saying its looking more and more likely every day. Stay tuned!

Interesting doings at the Friday movie night at the gym. In attendance were Cell BLock 6's power couple Jack Abramoff and Otis Stackhouse. Abramoff who was donnin’ denim 'n' a scruffy punim, and the utterly gorgeous bodybuilder Otis sat in the back while giving new meaning to the phrase 'public display of affection. Yowza! However, no sooner did the sexalicious couple start their couplings than who should walk in? That's right Hector Guzman, he of the 22 inch biceps! Readers will remember that Jackie and Hector were hot n heavy for a while until Hector ran out of cigarettes and a little bird tells me that Hector has regretted trading the bikini waxed Abramoff for 2 packs of Lucky Strikes. Life and regret are a beooootch girlfriends!

Later that Friday nite at the dance, none other than Bob Ney was seen dancing with himself, his shirt tied up higher on his ample torso than usual. Ole Bob was gyrating and bumping and grinding and generally making a scene of himself. Seems that Mr. Ney was doing all he could to show the aforementioned Otis stackhouse just what he's missing. Oh dear reader you didn't forget that Otis and the Neyster were quite the item for a while did you? Those of you in the know remember that Otis lost interest in Bumpin Bobby Ney after acquiring the mantastic Jack Abramoff for ciggies...OH THE FICKLE HEART!

That's all for now but there'll be lots more to come as the buzz builds for the arrivals of Rick Renzi,John Doolittle and Tom Delay. Oh yes they are a kinky bunch here as there's lots of talk of tag teaming father and son, the oh-so-DILFY Ted Stevens and his son, the smooth and shaven Ben Stevens. The times are just as exciting here at Cellblock Secrets as they've ever been, as prosecutors around the country continue to feed these hungry, hungry men w/ more of that delicious GOP flesh. YUMMERS!

Posted by CT Voter
August 24, 2007

"It's just very frustrating and truly outrageous."

Yes. They are not terribly competent politicians, are they? Afraid to look "weak" on terrorism, so they do the wrong thing. Presented with a gift in the form of an editorial, they do nothing...Unbelievable.

Posted by Bows & Flows of Leftist Crap
August 24, 2007

You go Question Hillary! These libtards will never understand what a diffence you make by posting here, that what you are doing is just as important and honorable as the troops! If it wasn't for you QH, the American skies would be filled w/ parachuting Iraqi insurgents and gay activists, ready to invade and destroy our wholesome way of life. YOU ARE THE THIN LINE BETWEEN OUR WAY OF LIFE AND SHARIA!!!! Though I, like you, would never dream of enlisting in the military and fighting for my country, I'm pretty sure that the brave fighting men of our military would be the first ones to congratulate you for all youR courageous work here. GOD BLESS YOU, YOU COURAGEOUS WARRIOR!

Posted by Jim
August 24, 2007

Unfortunately for the entire point of their op-ed piece, to let the 82nd spend some time in place longer than "barely 2 months", the facts regarding the 82nd's deployment just don't add up.

2/82 hit sand in late January, some of the first surge troops to arrive, and have been operating in their area for over 6 months...quite a bit longer than the Weekly Standard's presumption.

Posted by linda
August 24, 2007

Guess Kristol was out spinnin' and grinnin' again. I missed it but here's a 'put up or shut up':

http://hunter.dailykos.com/

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Keven Bennett wrote, "Well, Sean, who ELSE can they give power to? The Republicans?"

The Republicans. At least Republicans get stuff done, even if it's not the stuff we want. What do Democrats do? Whine. Americans want actions, not excuses.

Keven Bennett asked, "How do YOU define 'victory'? How do YOU define 'defeat'?"

I'm not sure what your point is here; victory for Democrats? for Americans?

Victory is being able to set the terms of what comes next (as defined by the context of the victory), defeat is giving up. The Democrats are closer to the latter than the former.

"C'mon! Speak up! Can YOU put lipstick on this pig??? Or can YOU turn a pig into an eagle?"

I can put lipstick on a pig, but I'll want it sedated first. Transmogrification I leave to the graduates of Hogwarts.

sean s.

Posted by Keven Bennett
August 24, 2007

Wanna know who else is a hero? Me that's who. I killed 100 terrorists in my backyard, this time I wasn't playing Jack Bauer, I was Chuck Norris!

Mom made smores and after a glass of milk I killed 100 more!

Also, I saved the lives of a family of gerbils who made a home up my @ss. Having forgotten that I put a male and female up there, I was notified while being gang banged at the College Republican party. I don't usually like girls much but there was this one girl there, she was the only one, and she gave me her phone number...her name is Brownback girl. There's something about her...I told her right off the back though that I would leave her in second for Fred Thompson. I WANT THAT MAN INSIDE ME NOW!!!!!!!

Posted by Judgement
August 24, 2007

I can answer that for you Northern, because their story sounded a little more like exaggeration than the actual truth. Is this country wide or just in the cities near their deployment? Just because 7 people out of 160,000 see it that way does not make it fact. Just like you could make the same argument at your job as to how things are going just ask a few different people. Also the Dems would be climbing out on a political limb if they backed it.

The Democrats are almost paralyzed as it is because they can't tell which way the political wind is blowing on the surge. Like when Hillary said that the surge seemed to be working but, it is too late and then gets blasted for even saying something that could be construed as favorable. The Democratic Leadership doesn't stand on principle; they are only concerned with getting in the white house. They would have use lose the war just so they could get elected. I wish I could remember the Dem Senators name who was asked what would happen if the surge report came back favorable, he said "that would be a big problem for us."

Democrats have positioned themselves to where the only way they look good now is if we fail in Iraq. Otherwise they have been wrong about every aspect of the war. Voted for the war, then after it wasn’t going well, against it. Voted for the 87 billion for equipment, then changed mind. Held up funding to the last possible moment, then caved and voted to fund through September anyway without all their benchmarks met. Voted for Patreus then criticized the surge before it was even deployed. Now that the surge seems to be meeting most expectations, it is too late the war is lost. I swear if one of them showed some leadership I could at least respect that instead of their constant flip flopping they do based on the latest opinion polls.

Democrats could care less how we do in Iraq. All they care about is another problem to brand, getting more seats in Congress, and the Presidential election. The Dem congress has the lowest approval ratings on record. They need to be concentrating on that more than anything. For all their criticism of the President they should definitely not be throwing stones.

There is a difference between bipartisan discussion and calling our troops terrorist (Kerry, Murtha). There are moderate ways to say that you think that the war is not going so well then to say we have lost (Reed). We need to show a united front instead of the constant political posturing. Yes everyone has the right to free speech but, lets keep it responsible. Like the WWII news reels used to say “the enemy is listening”. That has never been so true as it is today.

While we are at it here is another thought. Can you blame Maliki for talking with Ahmadinejad because if you thought the only security your country had was going to bail on you based on who gets elected president, wouldn't you seek some other way to hold it together. The Dems trying to enact foreign policy from Congress is causing as much political blundering as anything (Pelosi, Levin, Obama, Hillary).

Posted by Voice of Reason
August 24, 2007

The "heroes" were not trashed. That was a response to an op/ed piece. One that the NY Times refused to print. Once again the liberal media standard bearer censoring someone it does not agree with. Are those 7 the only enlisted men allowed to speak or write about Iraq? You say nothing about the Times censorship. Instead you attack the Standard for running it. So, Joe, what happened to freedom of speech? Are we suppose to check with you prior to speaking? Or is it feeedom of speech for liberals only?

Posted by Anonymous
August 24, 2007

Funny how American soldiers are "torturing nazi occupiers in an illegal war for oil (abu gharib abu gharib war crime war crime)" but then are all of the sudden heroes when they say something that goes along with the defeat at any cost for the white house democrat platform. Typical liberal hypocrisy at work.

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

"...calling our troops terrorist (Kerry, Murtha)."

Care to provide the full context for that quote? Not so much, right? That's because that's not what was said.

As for the 7 being the "only ones being allowed to speak." No one said that should be the case. That's idiotic. But the Republican noise machine should not be the only thing allowed to broadcast either. Because often its discourse consists of knuckle-dragging claims like, "Kerry called the troops terrorists."

Posted by SpotWeld
August 24, 2007

You have a funny idea of censorship VOR. All vets on both sides of this issue have allowed to have thier opinions, and all have found venues to broadcast them. Unless you've suddenly started pushing for a "equal time" rule I'm not sure where you're coming from on this.

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

Incidentally, the 82nd Airborne piece was obviously published to balance out the Brookings scholars piece, which was originally published by the Times. They're within their rights to decide that this is as far as they want to take it. I'm sure they published letters to the editor that criticized the 82nd Airborne enlisted men.

Posted by An Outhouse
August 24, 2007

" David Bellavia, Pete Hegseth, Michael Baumann, Carl Hartmann, David Thul, Knox Nunnally, and Joe Dan Worley all served with either the Army or Marine Corps in Iraq, and are all members of Vets for Freedom. "

None of them have been in Iraq recently and none of them can comment on the situation with any kind of authority. In particular David Bellavia has been writing crap like this for a couple years now. His father writes op-eds for a small newspaper in my area. He is the most incoherent right wing liar I have seen published. Apparently our paper doesn't feel that opinion pieces should be fact checked.

Posted by Tom
August 24, 2007

Posted by Proud Liberal Vet
August 24, 2007
"I suggest that all of my fellow liberals begin arming themselves for the war that is surely coming in America. Whoever said that the Right hates Liberals is absolutely correct. The day they started calling me a traitor for not supporting their lies and war I started stock piling bullets. I'm just praying for the day one of those creeps break down my door."

This is satire, right? You do know that your "fellow liberals" hate the actual Constitution (i.e., the one with actual words written by the founders and not the one called a "living" "Constitution" invented by lawless "judges" (See Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, et al.), particularly the Second Amendment, and would prohibit you from owning a firearm, unless you are a convicted felon, in which case you would be allowed to own a firearm and would be entitled to vote and would be entitled to a taxpayer financed Escalade with 28 inch rims and ....

Posted by Voice of Raisin
August 24, 2007

Yeah Joe...why do you waste time writing about those cowards who don't support our troops and hate America. Why don't you write a story about the courageous few who stayed behind so we can fight terrorists at Swampland and on talk radio? WE are the thin line between a wholesome America and sharia Joe.

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

Good god. We're out to take your guns and Bibles. Please, leave the silly culture war smokescreen behind. That's half the reason we're in this mess.

As for lawlessness... do I even need to comment on that? Think of who is the United States' chief "law enforcement officer". It's not pretty.

Posted by Judgement
August 24, 2007

JJ,

"JOHN KERRY: [T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh-uh-uh, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535270/posts

There was no need to insinuate that our soldiers were terrorists. Terrorizing kids and children well then he is basically saying the soldiers are terrorists. You know did he fail to mention our same soldiers giving out candy and toys.

Oh and you were right, I forgot, Murtha stopped short of saying the marines were terrorists he just said based upon no evidence at all, Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood”. Interestingly enough he turned out to be wrong and then didn't even have the damned decency to offer an apology.

Hey, I can throw in some Obama if you want some more ridiculous liberal rhetoric that endangers our troops and serves up the Islamic terrorist propoganda machine.

"Obama: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians."

My favorite.

Posted by Proud Liberal Vet
August 24, 2007

Tom I don't know what southern swamp you crawled out of but I suggest you go back to screwing your cousins and leave the serious thinking to someone who isn't half retarded.

Posted by KOS KIDZ
August 24, 2007

Damn straight Judgement! Here's a video of our troops giving Iraqi kids water bottles if you libtards don't believe us:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

Are they giving the kids candy? I was at a College Republican party and they gave me candy too, but first they blindfolded me and told me to guess what it was they put in my mouth. After a couple dozen of them, I determined that they weren't like any candy I've ever had before, but I really, really liked it whatever it was. I thought they were putting whole rolls of Lifesavers in my mouth only smaller and they went soft after a while...I guess there was some kind of creamy center to them. I just call whatever it was Conservative Candy!

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Judgement wrote, "There was no need to insinuate that our soldiers were terrorists. Terrorizing kids and children well then he is basically saying the soldiers are terrorists."

Sorry, no. The goal of terrorists is to terrorize. The goal of our soldiers is to root out insurgents, along the way they might inadvertantly or unavoidably terrorize someone, but inflicting that terror is not their goal.

There is a difference between someone who, in the course of things, does something bad, and someone who sets out to do something bad. I will bet anything I have that at some point an American solder has inadvertantly killed an innocent child, that does not make them baby-killers. It is well documented that American soldiers have killed each other ("friendly fire") but that does not make them turn-coats or traitors. Bad stuff happens in war (like duh!) but there remains a difference between the accidents of war and deliberate war crimes.

It SEEMS you want something to be angry at John Kerry for, I'm sure you can find something without torturing the language or logic to invent a reason. I voted for the bastard and I'm angry at him.

sean s.

Posted by TomT
August 24, 2007

"Democrats have positioned themselves to where the only way they look good now is if we fail in Iraq. "

We've already failed. If you look at what Bush is hoping for now, it's what would have been considered failure two years ago, let alone four years ago.

And I don't think that makes very many Democrats look good either. But it's how it is.

Posted by JJ
August 24, 2007

"Terrorizing kids and children well then he is basically saying the soldiers are terrorists."

That's like saying someone is "basically pregnant." They either are or aren't. Kerry obviously did not mean to say our troops are terrorists.

As a matter of fact, that quote could have come from Petraeus talking about counterinsurgency. If you want to win friends and influence people, it helps if you don't freak out their women and children.

As for Murtha, there was a murder case, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

And as for Obama, here's the full context:

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Not an unreasonable off-the-cuff comment. But it's quite different from what the red-meat Fox headline said, isn't it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293187,00.html

This crap is a waste of everyone's time. I'm not going to engage any more of it.

Posted by Tom
August 24, 2007

Proud Liberal Vet, you libtards want to destroy the Constitution by giving gays 'special rights'. I can't name any of those 'special rights', but I know they exist...Rush Limbaugh said so.

Libtards hate the constitution because they want to close down Guantanamo, which is a beacon of freedom around the world and the best advertisement this Constitution ever had. Thank Jesus those constitution-loving conservative Bush Dog Democrats voted w/ Republicans to allow the wiretapping on American citizens, something our Founding Fathers would certainly agree with.

ANd I am sick and tired of these military guys saying our military is stretched to the breaking point. These generals are libtards who are trying to get us to enlist. We won't, the lines of battle are here at Swampland and our backyards....THATS WHERE THE TERRISTS ARE!

Posted by Bows and Flows of Leftist Crap
August 24, 2007

I MAEK POOPIES IN MY PANTS!!!

Posted by Proud Liberal Vet
August 24, 2007

Tom I've seen gay Republicans blow goats that are smarter than you. Here is the bottom line retard, you and your retard leader couldn't grow grass in a rain forest and it isn't my fault. America is done with gay, corrupt, incompetent morons, which pretty much puts you and your party out of business.

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
August 24, 2007

Useless Conservative Chickenhawk Update # 251 (collect them all):

Trent Lott: "I pin medals of bravery on each and every conservative in this country who showed their love of country and courage by continuing to make '24' the rating success that it is! Also medals of freedom for all those brave conservatives calling in to Rush at this very important time in our nation's history...and oh yeah, support the troops"

Republican strategist JC Watts: "I will surrender Iraq and the greater Middle Class to Iran before we lose a precious single Christian conservative to battle. I want conservative Christians to be exactly where there supposed to be...in a trailer park snorting Oxycontins, drinking moonshine and watching Springer"

Senator Tom Coburn: "I will urge our proud conservatives to fight our enemies the same way the glorious President Bush does...by going to Texas to fight the insurgents there! Then I will thank my black limo driver Rufus for being, well, black and hung like a horse. Me lovee chocolate long time."

Senator Stevens: "I will be attending North Korea's next ICBM launch party, but will surrender Iraq and everything not the Dodgers west of the Mississippi unless someone slips me a briefcase full o cash. Support the troops...by contributing to me."

Senator Inhofe: "Evolution is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm not feeling very well and I need a good blood letting to get better. Where are my leeches?"

Senator David Vitter: "I will surrender my new Bible, my wifes hot leopard print dress, a year's supply of adult diapers and a case of an@l lube, before any of my conservative constituents has to sacrifice anything for this war. Support the troops(so we don't have to)."

Posted by magisterludi
August 24, 2007

MIS, in Mississippi- Thanks for the welcome correction on Rep. Murphy. All the sweeter.

Posted by linda
August 24, 2007

Judgement: so, tell me the difference in 'we'll stand down when THEY stand up' and what Kerry said. Could it be that flustercluck of Bremer/Petreaus training them up has resulted in the US retaining all decision-intel control while ignoring any Iraqi Military leadership that wanted to be US allies. Look at the details of missing arms, money while training and arming every insurgent little and big in the ME is going to get the job done. Or do you just blindly ignore the devil in the details?

As for Obama, he apparently is rather clueless about Afghanistan/Pakistan as his poll numbers are starting to reflect. His hard core folk keep splainin' it, but the fact that he thinks that a couple of 'phantom brigades' to chase ghosts in the mountains is going to change the outcome against OBL and the Taliban-poppy folks is more than a little naive. But on the other hand, he seems to be more committed than the current leaders of the PACs.

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Actually, the media reported recently that a special forces unit in Afghanistan pursued some targets into Pakistan. This is on Bush's watch. Seems the incursions into Pakistan are already underway, Obama was only "naive" in saying what he and any other candidate would do, but the others are too savvy (i.e. dishonest) to say.

Such is the state of our politics: honesty is regarded as naive.

sean s.

Posted by H. Montague Worthington, Billionaire
August 24, 2007

You stupid liberals are so stupid and anti-American that you immediately start hurling personal insults whenever you start losing an argument. You know what that makes you? Dirty, worthless losers.

And how DARE you criticize me for not joining the military when I'm doing my part to win Our Epic Conflict to Eradicate the Evil Scourge of Islamofascist Terror (tm)! I am investing tens of millions of dollars to end our dependence on foreign oil by developing an engine that runs entirely on foreign baby blood.

Posted by sean samis
August 24, 2007

Just in case you wondered:

U.S. allowed pursuit of suspects into Pakistan
August 24, 2007

BY SCOTT LINDLAW

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Newly uncovered so-called rules of engagement show the U.S. military gave elite units authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the country's officials in advance. ... continued at: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/NEWS07/708240392/1009

Obama's just honest where Bush/HRC/et al. are dishonest. Considering how Bush has trashed our reputation around the world as torturing liars, Obama's refreshing honesty is what we need.

sean s.

Posted by linda
August 24, 2007

Naive is responding to questions about 'his votes' on the VA committee with 'they [Bush shills] told us that the VA was fully funded'.

Naive is thinking that increasing troop levels in Afghanistan from 30,000 to 36,000 is going to mean anything in the grand scheme of things, except for further stretching the military.

And yes, naive is the Pakistan issue. I am a private citizen who follows the news with some tenacity. I would expect a Senator with a staff to be at least as aware as I am about US Troops and Pakistan. I was aware of several 'incidents' that were reported on in the press involving the execution of those 'newly uncovered rules of engagement' that lead to blowback from Pakistan.

Posted by Bows & Flows of Leftist Crap
August 24, 2007

H. Montague Worthington, Billionaire, please don't forget to make an engine that runs on the blood of anyone who doesn't accept our sweet loving Jesus and doesn't accept the fact that Jesus would have voted for the surge.

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
August 24, 2007

Whoppee...we killed 3 terrists!

WWW.rawstory.com/news/afp/Three_Britons_die_in_US_friendly_fi_08242007.html

Yes, they're terrists. Everybody knows those British read books, comb their hair and have plays and all those homosexual activities. They don't love Jesus the way we do, and don't live wholesome lives like we do in the Bible Belt! Those punks gave up the fight against the cheese-eating surrender monkeys the French, our enemy, and they want to pull out of Eye-Raq just when we're about to WIN. Fine! This is what you get! You think you're gonna live in that bubble? Well, SUCK....ON....THIS.

Posted by the Real arch stanton
August 24, 2007

I am selling slightly used gerbils of $5 a piece in order to raise money for Cindy Sheehan's run for the House of Representatives. Will you do your part and buy one from me?

Posted by Proud Liberal Vet
August 24, 2007

Put me in for 2.

August 24, 2007 10:21

Reader Comments