Today's LATimes front page story regarding the GOP chances for success despite all the polls is freaking me out. President and his brain still think that they will win. What's up with that? What's your take?

I still think the republicans are going to win, but I'll go along with your hypothetical:

If the media manages to tilt the election towards the liberals, they-- like the scorpion-- will be unable to resist their nature. Look for federal funding for baby killing (using euphemisms like 'stem cells' and 'abortion'), grave robbing ('called the death tax')and trying to impede investigations against terrorists.

When the American people are reminded that Democrats support greater rights for terrorists than innocent babies, they'll recoil in horror and correct their mistake in 2008.

Cradle robbing is the Public an MO - from Birth Taxes that mean every child born owes he government $30K because our responsible publican leaders (HA!) do not believe in PAYGO to not being able to keep their hands off underage pages.

Cradle-robbers, the lot of them.

From the email address, the AH post seems to be real.

We are in deep shit if people still think like that.

What's next?

IMPEACH.
REMOVE.
CONVICT.
PUNISH.
JUSTICE.

Hopefully, before lunch.

Dem's will not be control of enough to make meaningful changes in direction. Best hope for Dem's is to roast the Repub's over the coals of house investigations to show the accountablility required for effective government (and war fighting and nation building) was severely lacking in the current crop of Repub's. Holding the coat for Repub's or hiding the corruption, or getting caught in the Iraq tarbaby can only lead to defeat in 2008. The Dem's must show they are clearly different that the Rebub's by 2008.

If Bush does reach out, the Democrats can respond that yes, they are willing to work with Bush to create a better Iraq policy, but the prerequisite is to do a thorough set of Congressional inquiries on how the war has been conducted and the true state of the Iraq situation. If the Democrats are to be a partner they have to be a fully informed partner, and also a co-equal partner.

Heh, thanks for the reminder, Chuck.

Come to think of it, I *did* vote on Wednesday.
Two days ago.

Ah, the spin begins.

The media "tilting" the electorate.

Well, here in Oregon, the Oregonian's Editorial Board endorsed Ron Saxton, the Pub for Guv.

That was two weeks ago, when the polls indicated the race was extremely tight.

In this morning's Oregonian, large headlines about the polls favorably shifting to Governor Kulongoski. One reason given was the offputting by the Pubs - the smell factor. Ah, yes the tilting by the media, I presume.

Not only can I not imagine Bush giving that speech, I can't imagine the Democrats cooperating if he did. Every indication is that most Democrats in Congress are out for payback, not moving forward and improving things in the country.

Personally I expect the Democrats to take the House but not the Senate. Either way, expect more gridlock. But then I'm an optimist.

My take? Gergen is trying his new routine before he hits the road to pursue his new career in stand-up.

Bush asking for a bipartisan effort to bring the war to a just and speedy conslusion?

Now that's comedy.

And gregor, don't have a cow. Bush is delusional, and Rove is already saying that they've lost (because not enough people took his advice). The Times is just trying to sell papers.

Bush HAS CLEARLY SAID that if the Dems win, the terrorists have won.

He CAN'T work with TERRORISTS!

God, Kevin, you Godless idiots are so dense.

If the media manages to tilt the election towards the liberals,

I know it's the usual wingnut whine to complain about how liberals talk down their noses to "us common folk," but then why do they always portray the electorate as a bunch of mindless boobs who will slavishly vote whatever way the media says.

C'mon, hawk, try making an intelligent arguement for a change.

Bush has never done anything with humility his entire life. Why would he start now?

I think we'll see Bush and his administration continue to act like spoiled, petulant children, only more so. It will be 2 years of gridlock and acrimony, with Bush/CheneyCo flaunting the accepted SOP, rules, and law with increasing disregard and hubris that will make the first 6 years look like a high school Model UN Club.

They will dare the limp-wristed congress to use their powers of oversight, like a jaywalker staring straight at a patrolman, flipping the bird the whole time. They will go down in a blaze of glorified havoc, trying to wreck and destory everything around them, like a drunken, abusive spouse on an episode of Cops — shirt off, on the lawn, expletives bleeping, swinging a baseball bat of wretched desperation, before he is tackled, bound, and thrown into the backseat of a waiting patrolcar.

Don't say I didn't tell you so, but remember that Max Cleland was up 5-8 points in every poll, and then "lost"!

Yay for the Good Guys!

Look for federal funding for baby killing (using euphemisms like 'stem cells' and 'abortion'), grave robbing ('called the death tax')and trying to impede investigations against terrorists.

I can't wait! I'm so excited.

OBF - The Major and I voted Wednesday as well. Great minds, eh?

There's no doubting that Democrats support greater rights for terrorists than innocent babies. Even you have to admit that much.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - but some babies grow up to be terrorists. (especially when foreign powers occupy their country). So it's really a mixed blessing.

I believe Nancy Pelosi has said there will be no IMPEACH.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, well Bush said Saddam had WMD. You've got a double standard?

That would be very big of Bush, closing the doors after the horses have left the stable.

If Dems take control of the house (a big if, I admit) they will already have gained a role in war policy- it would be pretty nervy of Bush to offer them something they already have. Which means it might happen after all.

What's going to happen? That's easy. From Tuesday onward, everything that goes bad in Iraq will be the fault of the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress. That'll include everything that went bad *before* Dems became the majority.

Paul Belian of Brussels Journal: However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West and the Muslim “youths” in Europe’s cities will become even more arrogant. They utterly despise the Europeans, whom they perceive (not entirely without reason) to be men dressed up as ballerinas, and they hate America because it fights back. In a world ruled by men who only understand the language of power it is better to be hated than despised.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1626

I do not know who Paul Belian is, but his idea is intriguing.

American Hawk, quit with the "grave robbing" motif. It makes me laugh out loud. It's as stupid as John Kerry.

Well, at least Gergen provides the pro forma Beltway reaction. Actually, the time for Bush to make that speech -- and live up to it -- was sometime around mid-September 2001.

By propping up Bush's sagging political fortunes, and giving him license to do what he'd really wanted to do all along in Iraq, bin Laden undoubtedly exceeded his own wildest aspirations. He hobbled the U.S. with the most incompetent leadership in its history. There's a real element of luck involved, but already it's clear that bin Laden achieved the greatest strategic victory since the end of the Cold War.

Oh and remember Republicans;
Don't vote - just Pray, because Jesus will make things all right. Trust in Jesus. Jesus is your friend.

His admitted recovery from alcoholism, relying on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as well as his repeated references to marrying above himself are "humble".
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Chuck, that reminds me. I've got some land in South Central Florida. Great development opportunity. But I'm tied up in other projects right now. You want to buy it? (I think there's a big, red, bridge in there somewhere too).

Tom Daschle, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Ed Kilgore, and Daniel Levy

With moderates like these crafting policy, we can assume the American people are fucked!

Instead of sending the Baker Commission to Gaza, send the Marines.

From the email address, the AH post seems to be real.

We are in deep shit if people still think like that.
Posted by: gregor

Having delusions is not the same as thinking

Even Gergen's "conciliatory" speech contains an infamous Republican straw man. We should take the option of leaving immediately off the table? Who put it ON the table, exactly? As far as I can tell, NO ONE has, ever!

GWB has shown humility .....

Comedy Gold!

Remember Repubs. 11/07 is the day of your scheduled monthly tryst with the male prostitute for $300.

Here's what's going to happen: If the Dems take the House every single problem, misstep, war death, budget snafu, policy failure, crashed airplane and auto safety recall will be their fault starting November 8th. If they also take the Senate the above will become retroactive to, oh, year 1892. Bush will claim if not for divided government he could lead but now with Dems in (partial?) power all is lost. Rove will tee up on the situation and hit a home run in 2008. By then the sheeple, trolls, zombies, wingnuts and evangelicals will be convinced Democrats are Satan's spawn and let the pogroms begin. Since the above groups make up most of the electorate it'll be Brownback or Frist or some other whackjob measuring for the drapes.

David Gergen is a real mensch. Any administration would do well to have men like him advising. That's why Bill Clinton called on him.

George W. Bush is a putz. He doesn't have the talent to work with Dems in Congress except to ask George Allen to spit on them.

From the POV of relationships and being nice, I like Gergen's suggestion. Trouble is, there's no way an improved strategy will come out of such joint planning. Here's why. We have four possible strategies, broadly speaking;

1. Do more - more troops, more attacks.

2. Stay the course.

3. Do less.

4. Withdraw.

If Stay the Course isn't working, I think we ought to either Do More or Withdraw. But, Demcratic input into Bush's decision process can only result in Do Less, a strategy even less likely to work than Stay the Course.

Furthermore, very few Dems have been interested in seriously participating in the decisions. Although I didn't agree with Jack Murtha, his suggestion of withdrawal was an option worth considering. But, most Dems just want to find fault with Bush and his team.

He goes on to say that if "Bush were to be man enough to ask the Democrats to join him," Dems should take him up on it even if it might hurt them in the short term. In the long run, it would demonstrate their governing bona fides and increase their political capital.

This presumes facts not in evidence: to wit, that there is a "good" method of continuing the Iraq war that Dems could sign on to that would end in complete disaster and, therefore, in the long run as well as the short be a political and policy disaster for Democrats to join on to just for the phantom benefit of collegiality.

If the Democrats want to establish governing bona fides they can do it only by governing well. That means pursuing, as best they can, good policy. If Bush wants to actively and forthrightly cooperate with that, then fine (though that doesn't eliminate the need for accountability for any past misdeeds.)

But you don't establish governing bona fides by abandoning principle and the vigorous pursuit of good policy to pursue compromise for its own sake just because the other side used some conciliatory language. That's plain stupid.

I expect net neutrality will be legislated away by whichever of the two oligarchic parties holds a majority. GE will demand it.

There's also the slight matter of Gergen being a Republican. Democrats should demand a pretty high burden of proof before considering his advice on any subject.

His admitted recovery from alcoholism, relying on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as well as his repeated references to marrying above himself are "humble".

Christians lie all the time. Bush is not humble or he would admit to his mistakes. And Charlie can't even tell the truth about who or what he is.

"Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause."

Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03

David Gergen is a real golem.

That's why Bill Clinton was stabbed in the back by him.

Rev. Ted Haggard admits on tape that he bought meth from Mike Jones and Haggard also says he went to see the male escort initially for a...a... mwahaha...a masssage!!!! based on a referral from a Denver hotel!!!

You can't make this shit up!

A massage from a male escort means...

I did not have sex with that man... Mr. Jones.

Heh.

they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party.

That would be the republicans for anyone without a program.

I just have to say (in my professional capacity as a print production artist), that cover art is really ugly. I looked at it for a while before I figured out what is wrong, your artist forgot to knock out the black region under the newspaper and above Truman's arm. I would have just used the whole photo and done a blue or red spot color duotone masked onto the background only.

Yes it will be a cold day in hell before Bush gives that speech. BUsh sees politics as a sport. There is no "greater good", only winners and losers, us and them.
For the 1st poster above, Rove and Co have no choice but to act like they are certain they will win. That's how the game is played.

I tell you what, if after all of these polls predicting massive Democratic gains next Tues, something truly dirty will have to occur for the Republicans to maintain control of the House.

Tough choice - Either prison, no head from Ann or the military. Hmmm.

Paul Belian is beloved by the right wing "the Muslims" are under my bed crowd - Next, we'll have the Doofus from Drexel Hill extolling Belian's recent visit to NYC and appearing on VBlogs with Atlas Shrugged. The loonies also love him because he is in a flap with the Police over home schooling his children. Trying to save them from his perceived view of the PC of EU as it were.

He constantly writes and blogs from Brussels about the invasion of the "Islamofascists". If you go to Atlas Shrugged, you will find that filth attracks filth.

Kevin,

C'mon now. We all know, Gergen included, that Bush cannot make that concession. If he does this the GOP loses their "true believers" for a considerable period of time. The GOP also loses significant funding from its base. The nutjobs like limbaugh, malkin, the whole crew at powerline etc. will go into convulsions. He will have to be forced to change because at least then he can say he was "resolved" and then blame the Dems for the loss in Iraq. He simply will not take the blame for that. Not ever.

What if Democrats win control of Congress next week? What then?

Introduce a bill to export all republicans to Iraq.

Give 'em a pair of boots, a rifle, some ammo, and a bible.

Iraq is there problem. They need to be sent there to fix it.

NOW!

Bush seems to have sort-of taken Gergen's suggestion. He has offered the Dems a role in planning for Iraq, although he didn't mke the offer in a nice way:

Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq
Fri Nov 3, 2006
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - President George W. Bush challenged Democrats on Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

I wish the Dems would respond with a better plan. Bush can use the help.

Good God the world will not come to an end Nov.8 when the Dems take control of the House.The only thing that will change is Osama won't get everything that he could wish for from Bush.

Bush is incapable of doing what Gergen suggests. He will do what he always does, which is demand total capitulation to his will.

It is not the responsibility of the opposition party to bail his punk-ass out. Period.

He may as well stand there (in front of hundreds when the venue holds thousands) and tell the truth: "Okay folks, I gotta level with y'all. I got nuthin."

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'm afraid a Dem victory plays out the way Billmon predicts...

http://billmon.org/archives/002922.html

Meanwhile, in Billings, Montana Bush made the front page of the Billings Gazette - under the fold. Above the fold was a larger picture of the flag-draped coffin of Petty Officer Second Class Chuck Kompaa, arriving at Logan International.

Would anybody here like to wager on the Cardin-Steele matchup in MD?
So, uh, good luck with that Senate takeover, guys.
Seriously.

Please, if you know any Democrat voters do them a favor and remove sharp objects before Tuesday. If you wait until Wednesday it may already be too late.
The champipple won't even be dry on the convention center floors before calls of 'stolen' elections begin.

Shrub will merely descend into his bunker and await the breakthough of the Ninth Army at Halbe.

Some of his last words will be "They're all traitors". and "Et tu, Barney?". Probably more of a slur "Eat you, Barney".

Global Citizen; It is not the responsibility of the opposition party to bail his punk-ass out. Period.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

As a revered war hero, Eisenhower could have destroyed JFK's reputation. But, Eisenhower knew that maintaining JFK's status would help America lead the cold war against the USSR. He was focused on defeating America's enemies, not his party's enemies.

I do think it is a bit of a shame about Shrub having to make any changes regarding Rumdumb.

After all, they have spent so much money to install a hot line, ala the Red Phone, between the two of them. At the present, all Shrub has to do is touch a button and say, "Doofus Three, this is Doofus One, Over".

Inigo, rather dull blade? Rapier needs sharpening.

We are not dealing with Ikes Republican party. We are dealing with an abomination.

Global Citizen: Meanwhile, in Billings, Montana Bush made the front page of the Billings Gazette - under the fold. Above the fold was a larger picture of the flag-draped coffin of Petty Officer Second Class Chuck Kompaa, arriving at Logan International.

A good example of media bias.

thethirdPaul,

See you Wednesday.

Media bias? That was their own coming home dead after dying for this presiddents mistake. Reality is biased against the right, and there is apparently very good reasons for this.

ex-liberal,

I wish the Dems would respond with a better plan. Bush can use the help.

your wish was granted months ago:

In April, the "Real Security" plan, and in September, the Dem leadership and General Clark hosted an event to promote their thorough analysis of the failings of the current administration: get the report here.

Bush seems to have sort-of taken Gergen's suggestion. He has offered the Dems a role in planning for Iraq, although he didn't mke the offer in a nice way:

Bush claimed that Democrats can't answer the question "What's your plan?," even though many have answered the question. He then claimed that "We have a plan for victory. We have a plan to secure this country", even though he has never clearly outlined one, other than "victory" or to stay "until the job is done." Since he is the Commander in Chief and has the power to both make plans and execute them, he should put up or shut up.

Inigo,

Would anybody here like to wager on the Cardin-Steele matchup in MD?

Sure. You confident enough to give odds, or are you just proposing a straight-up bet?

Not to the dead mans family, or his friends, or his community.

Chuck,

Are you predicting the future or do you mean the previous thread? I have to say if it's a prediction I find your comment funny. If it's reporting on a previous thread I find it par for the course.

Thanks Angry. I refuse to acknowledge that waste of pixels.

Edo,

According to the polls your side so loves your guys ahead. It'll have to be you giving odds/points. Right? I mean, that's how confident you are, right?

I'll see you on Wednesday. With bells on.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

As a revered war hero, Eisenhower could have destroyed JFK's reputation. But, Eisenhower knew that maintaining JFK's status would help America lead the cold war against the USSR. He was focused on defeating America's enemies, not his party's enemies.

Ya think Ike's forbearance might also have been related to the fact that pretty much all the operational plans for the Bay of Pigs fiasco were drawn up by his appointees?

The historical ignorance of the right-wingers doesn't surprise me any more, but I am still taken aback at how they insist on flaunting it. Which is why a post from "ex-liberal" and his ilk rarely rates more than a "You again? Shut the fuck up, already."

Apparently I hate apostrophes.

guy's

Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq
Fri Nov 3, 2006
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - President George W. Bush challenged Democrats on Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Shorter Bush: help me, you filthy animals! Why won't you help me clean up my own mess!

Objectively, though, a visit by the President of the United States is a bigger NEWS story.

to campaign for an incumbent? That's a bigger NEWS story than the return of a dead soldier? Thanks for making your priorities clear, Chuck. You clearly don't support the troops or their families if you think a campaign visit for an incumbent is more NEWSworthy.

Stefan - It's even better. He (Bush) is so weak right now that he is campaigning for Talent(less) hack in the only part of the state where he is polling ahead of McCaskill!

He isn't coming to KC where we have buried five soldiers and marines in as many weeks.

Inigo,

You're the one that suggested a bet. You're the one claiming to be so confident.

sglover - Ya think Ike's forbearance might also have been related to the fact that pretty much all the operational plans for the Bay of Pigs fiasco were drawn up by his appointees?

No, sglover, the operational plans were drawn up by Kennedy's people. E.g., you can read a description of how they went wrong in the book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes by Irving L. Janis
.

David Gergen seems to never say anything original. Whenever he's on TV, he's the least interesting commentator, says the blandest things, and he's the one who always agrees with what everyone else is saying.

But I agree with what he said this time.. :)

Edo,

See you on Wednesday, sunshine.

I fear what we've seen so far out of this President is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Presidential power. Previously, Bush used the rubber stamps in Congress to make it appear he had unity on policy, at least from the party in power. What I think you're going to see come Nov 8 is a situation where Bush pushes the power/control/executive authority envelope way past where it's ever been before. I'm of the opinion the Democrats will retake at least one house of Congress, but regardless of how many seats the Democrats pick up, the bigger impact will be to scare those Republicans that survived re-election more towards the center and away from Bush. It has to be clear to the surviving Republicans any further association w/ Bush is death wish, and they'll also attempt to back track towards positions that Republicans historically maintained. The latest mega-pastor, gay prostitute sex scandal (assuming it's true it will quickly develop legs) is going to further erode the radical right and drive surviving Republicans away from supporting the Radicals and towards traditional Republican roots. What this means is Bush will be further isolated and he'll react by unilaterally taking steps independent of Congress. Bush, son of wealth and privelege,doesn't know how to play well w/ others so he's going to take further steps that further executive authority.

This election is a confidence vote on Bush; I hope for a resounding no confidence vote on Nov 7. That said, the larger the thrashing Bush takes, the more he'll react in a polarizing way.

We're headed for a very significant Constitutional Crisis this time w/ the Executive Branch being further isolated from any cover provided by the Republicans in Congress.

It's only going to get more nasty on Nov 8.

Gergen is smoking crack. Expecting humility from George W. Bush is about as likely as expecting silver monkeys to fly out of John Kerry's ass.

Will you be explaining how the Democratic Tsunami that is about to hit the beach was actually a loss for the Democratic party and good for the publicans?

Well that is good advice that Gergen gave but he is predicating that mature or sane people are currently in the White House, which isn't the case.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

That's because JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs invasion from Eisenhower, you fuckwad. The Bay of Pigs was a Republican plan, developed under Nixon's supervision.

Still, I like the subtext of "ex-liberals's" message: mercy! Please have mercy on us, for pity's sake!

Thanks for making your priorities clear, Chuck. You clearly don't support the troops or their families

Once a human being has developed its reasoning and awareness to the point where it can realize what a disturbed sociopath Charlie/Thomas/Chuck is, he no longer has any use for it.

A blastocyst can't recognize an idiot, which must come as a great comfort when you are one in spades.

President and his brain still think that they will win

Hey -- we're winning in Iraq, too, aren't we?

garyk - he's going beyond polarizing right to ionic about 11:00 p.m. eastern on November 7th.

We are absolutely winning in Iraq -- name ONE SINGLE military battle we've lost? The Democrats, of course, want us to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory though.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

The battle for hearts and minds. If you limit your criteria to "military battles" -then DUH, of course we're winning. But if you have a shred of human decency, you should give a crap about the hundreds of innocent Iraqis that are abducted, tortured, and murdered by the militias who have infiltrated and virtually control the government WE INSTALLED.

So go ahead and limit your criteria to "military battles" only. By that definition, if it allows you to sleep at night, then swell. But you're lying to yourself, and frankly, you're a disgusting, evil shit.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to rid the country of these incompetent, corrupt, arrogant, deceitful, hyprocrites...

name ONE SINGLE military battle we've lost

The ongoing insurgency. It is a military battle being fought in the streets of Iraq as we speak. WTF do you think is killing our soldiers?

Also, Operations Lightning and Black Thunder and Rum Drunk and every other when that was supposed to once and for all kill all the terrorists and stop the fighting.

Next.

Stefan - please go read Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes by Irving L. Janis. It's a great book. Not only does it give the background to the Bay of Pigs disaster, it also covers 6 or 7 other planning disasters. It's a great read. It's particularly valuable for those in management.

I read the book a long time ago, but still remember parts of it. The psychology of Kennedy's planning group wound up requiring that they all be in agreement. As I recall, one who disagreed was thereupon excluded from the planning group. Different viewpoint ought to have been encouraged; instead they were suppressed.

The final plan made little sense. E.g., a possible fallback called for our invading troops to withdraw to a certain area, but it was impossible to get to that area, because of geographic considerations. (swamps or mountains IIRC)

To Kennedy's credit, he learned a lot from that fiasco. His leadership in the Cuban missile crisis was masterful. Had he not been murdered, I think he would have been a great President.

You don't believe Bush when he says he married above himself?
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

I do believe that he married above himself.
I just don't believe he's sincere when he says that.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome trool?

I didn't give a crap about the hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Japanese . . .
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

And yet another fruit salad of Apples and Oranges brought to you by Chuck.

I didn't give a crap about the hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Japanese that were KILLED

Precisely what makes you a sociopath.

And a disgusting, evil piece of shit.

If a Republican Congress can spend taxpayer dollars investigating Bill Clinton’s Christmas card list, there is more than sufficient justification for a Democratic Congress to investigate (1) Cheney’s secret energy task force (2) who forged the Niger documents claiming Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” (3) the missing 28 pages from the 9-11 Commission’s Report, detailing Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (throw in James Baker’s law firms role in abetting that cover-up) (4) the role Cheney and others in the Bush Administration may have played in allowing Enron to game the So. California energy market and on and on and on.

The disparity between Congressional oversight over the Clinton vs. the Bush Administration is appalling and given the magnitude and seriousness of the wrongdoing involved, downright criminal. If the Dems take back Congress (and I remain deeply skeptical), they need to bury this Administration in subpoenas and lawsuits!!!

As I recall, one who disagreed was thereupon excluded from the planning group. Different viewpoint ought to have been encouraged; instead they were suppressed. The final plan made little sense.

I cannot possibly think what this reminds me of....

Trex - are you the same Trex from the DNC site that was at the Lamont rally today where the Liebergoons blockaded the bus and wouldn't let Ned or his people debark?

Wasn't it one Washington Monthly that published a "What if the Dems lose?" series in '04? And wasn't one of those essays devoted to the idea that, if the Dems didn't take the WH in '04, it would lead to the destruction of the Democratic party. That was Grover Norquist who wrote that, as I recall.

So he was half right - we didn't win, and one of the political parties is going to self-destruct as a result.

Gergen has found a personal niche market as everyone's favorite "reasonable conservative." When he's not giving bad advice to conservatives, he's giving equally bad advice to liberals.

Not me, Globe.

Every U.S. Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations has met its military objective(s).

In fact, Operation Forward Together in August was only the most recent counter-insurgency operation to fail. In fact, the body count in Baghdad tripled while it was in place.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome trool?
Posted by: Feh on November 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he'll refuse to pay his underage male prostitute, who will shoot him in the head.

One can hope.

. . . The latest mega-pastor, gay prostitute sex scandal (assuming it's true it will quickly develop legs) is going to further erode the radical right and drive surviving Republicans away from supporting the Radicals and towards traditional Republican roots. . . .
Posted by: garyk on November 3, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, it's true, all right. I hear there's recorded phone messages. Republicans seem to have the worst luck with recording devices. Maybe in 100 years when they manage to lie their way back into power, they ought to ban them.

Anyway, that WEDGE cuts both ways now, doesn't it. Little pyro Karl Rove likes playing with fire. Now he's going to feel the burn.

Every U.S. Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations has met its military objective(s).

So you're saying that Iraq's death-spiral to chaos is part of the plan?

I just don't believe he's sincere when he says that.

Nor humble, which is what Chuck wants to believe. Its a false humility.

Then we can compare to the complete list of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, etc., etc.

Eh? Barney Frank and Gerry Studds were involved in a "mega-church, gay prostitute sex scandal"?

Please provide citations.

Tell me which political office Haggard was running for?
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ayatollah.

. . . and that was a stretch to broadbrush every Republican.

Not really. I hear republican anuses are highly stretchable.

Are you still defining "fail" as "kill every terrorist"?

Tell me Chuckles - how does President Bush define "success" in the War on Terror? We don't have success criteria, we don't have an exit strategy - this has been the argument against Bush's alleged "plan" from day one. You can't ask US to define "failure" if your Dear Leader can't even define "success".

Using "generally accepted accounting practices", we have met every military objective set forth in Iraq.

How about; "keeping wmd out of the hands of terrorists?" - well, we only succeeded at that if there were no WMD in the first place - unless the WMD are in Syria, which means, they ARE in the hands of "terrorists".

How about a more specific - REAL example? The 400 tons of high explosives at Al Qa Qaa - that Rummy FAILED to secure, even after troops had already visited the site? The site was subsequently looted AFTER it was under US control, and those same explosives are now. . . oh, what, being used as paperweights sold at Iraqi craft-faires? You know god damned well what they're being used for. There's no fucking excuse for such incompetence, and there's no fucking excuse for refusing to acknowledge that this was a fuck up of massive proportions, and certainly an example of a FAILURE in a strict military definition. We essentially GAVE the enemy the very weapons that are now killing our own troops. That's not a successful operation.

chuck,

Please site [sic] your evidence to conclude you do not think Bush truly believes he married above himself with Laura?

Please cite your evidence that he does.

More to the point, it's a false humility. If he had said "Laura married below herself" then it might be a truly humble statement.

As I posted in another thread, this is a conservative victory -- which was won in the primaries. Therefore, no progressive initiatives domestically or internationally. Bush will find it easier to work with the new conservative Democrats, and will do so.

Conclusive victory in Iraq will be a paramount goal and trump withdrawal plans. Bush will get almost everything he wants from Congress in this area.

Leftish Democratic Senators and Representatives will find themselves marginalized. Democratic Congressional leadership, led by Nancy Pelosi, will tack swiftly to the right.
The power struggle between progressive and conservative Democrats will continue, favoring the conservative.

Impeachment? Other than shrill demands from some of the most powerless and marginalized Democratic representatives, there will not even be serious talk of this.

Many gay rights advocates will migrate to the Republican Party and shift focus to the state and local level.

Democratic presidential candidates will arise from the ranks of conservative current and former state governors.

Frequent commenters on this blog will remain in a perpetual state of outrage.

Was "securing the Al Qa Qaa site" a military objective BEFORE the groundwar started though?

If it wasn't, then it was unquestionably a failure in planning. either way, its a failure.

Sweet Lou,

Many gay rights advocates will migrate to the Republican Party and shift focus to the state and local level.

You clearly live in an alternate universe if you truly believe this.

"You mean Bush is going to actually suspend habeas corpus like Abe Lincoln did?!
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK"

Yes, except whne Bush does it there won't be any real justification for it. Lincoln= good, Bush = bad.

"Chuck" is "Alice" isn't he?

Bush devours the people who cooperate with him. Full stop. Always. Full stop.

Politicians fall into two camps. The "Let's get rich together" ones (the Warren Buffet model) and the "Let's make me rich" ones (the MS model). Bush is the ultimate "Let's make me rich" politician. Cooperating with him is ludicrous.

Accepting an offer like this from bush would be as disasterous as nominating Lieberman would have been in 2004. Both would have the practical effect of splitting the party for a decade. We'd lose congress in no time, and we'd be in iraq for 20 years. I doubt even the democratic party is that dumb.

JRI,

"Chuck" is "Alice" isn't he?

Hmmm...seems more like Charlie from the old calpundit days. "alice" suffered from the caps-lock syndrome that Chuck hasn't displayed much of.

Thanks Lou. Your truths haunt me.

Tammy Duckworth, a Bush's War veteran, beat out a liberal Democrat to run in Illinois' 6th district. A fucking war veteran. I doubt Tammy is a liberal, but I do think she accepts the need for wars to maintain US dominance in the world. She obeyed Bush. She will obey Bush. She will not protect us from Bush.

Regarding Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, the Constitution cites 2 reasons: invasion and rebellion. I think the Civil War counts as a rebellion. And get this: Lincoln's was illegal. And why? Because Congress has the power to suspend habeus corpus not the prez & our courts were still running. 2 factors. Even if Congress wants to suspend it, they can't because our courts are still running.

Lincoln's was rational if illegal. Bush's is arbitrary and dangerous.

Re: Gergen -- A few years back, some clever pundit pointed out the guaranteed way to be proven wrong in politics: Give George Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Edo,

Democratic candidates have run as fast as they could from gay rights issues. It might be argued that they are to the right of George. W. Bush, who said gay marriage was an issue for the states to determine, rather than outright denouncing it.

The argument that the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils for gay rights advocates is becoming weaker.

"We're just going to stay the course" George W Bush. 12/03, 4/04, 3/06

"We've never been stay the course" 11/06

Yes, Chuck you have found lots of references were George W Bush said he thought Laura was wonderful, great, above him, etc. So what? He is a proven liar. Thus, using his words isn't all that convincing to me.

Kevin - C'mon. For the love of Christ, do something about this miserable fuckhead. He brings nothing to the debate, he's just a fucking pest, like the hyperactive nephew you hate to see at the reunion because he's full of sugar and his parents are ineffectual jerks too boot.

Block this ignorant scumbag.

maybe he is Alice...

All I know is sweet justice has happened,All you rightwing bible thumping nimrods have had your money that you sent into the True believers has been used to buy Gay sex and Meth.I love it that will keep all the truly religious believers home tues.See ya AH Al Chuck and all.

Pale Rider punched Alice's clock one too many times and he/she/it faded away. I recall the time "it" was asked what "it's" AFSC number was after claiming service and it took "it" three days to respond.

Fuck off and die asshole.

And Chuck, you obviously know nothing about Christ's message, which was decidely anti-war.

Rep Katherine Harris's personal email:

kebbeson@hotmail.com

That's for chumps like you. I'd as soon set your lying ass on fire. Didn't you promise to kill yourself? Get on it. Humanity will be the better for it.

Now follow me over to AmericaBlog, why don't you? They are much more abusive to the trolls over there.

President Bush has always said that his tactics are flexible even as "stay the course" is the overall strategy; and he has said that he welcomes constructive criticism from Democrats, such as his good friend Joe Lieberman.

A speech such as Gergen outlined would have no beneficial effects at all, as the main points have been rejected already, on many occasions, by most Democrats. If Gergen's idea had any merit, Lieberman would have won the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

If Bush were smart, he would appoint Senator Lieberman to his Cabinet. That would allow the Republican Governor to appoint his replacement and the Senate would go from 50-50 (my guess) to 51-49 in favor of the Republicans.

YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF A "JUST WAR"?

Jesus never did.

THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

I suppose you might if you were employed, or even employable. But as it stands you're just a kook who's only life is...well, apparently this blog.

Chuck. Got Meth buddy.ha ah h ha hahahahahahah

"you obviously know nothing about Christ's message, which was decidely anti-war."
_________________

Hmmm. Everyone's message is anti-war (well, maybe with the exception of certain jihadists). There's just disagreement about when wars need to be fought.

Re Christ's message:

While "in the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us 'blessed are the peacemakers' (Matt. 5:9)..."

"Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, 'let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one' (Luke 22:36)."

"The New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or 'Peace of Rome,' could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state 'does not bear the sword in vain' but is 'God's servant for your good' (Rom. 13:4)."

...Then we can compare to the complete list of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, etc., etc.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

LOL! I must have missed the part where Barney Frank and Gerry Studds based their entire career off of peddling hate and bigotry against gays. I'll try to pay more attention next time around.

Trash and Chuck;
The jihadis have a doctrine of "Just War" too. Glad you agree with them. Wish we could put you guys in Gitmo too. Along with the deluded worshippers of the Church of the Free Market, and their very similar twisted justifications for "Just War".

Waiter: would you like some peace and justice with your chaos platter?
Chuck: "just war."

Hostile,

"f******" is not the adjective _I_ would choose to modify "war veteran"...

I think Tammy Duckworth and other conservative Democrats will challenge the White House strongly on the management of the war in Iraq while supporting the goal of definitive victory.

The real rollovers will be the Democratic leadership -- the senior Senators and Representatives -- who will provide only lip service to progressive policies while jockying to preserve their positions and status.

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our #1 priority." -- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

BTW:
Bob Ney just resigned.

Republican Culture of Corruption, Coverup, War-Profiteering, Bigotry, and Closeted Gay Sex.

chuck: Using "generally accepted accounting practices", we have met every military objective set forth in Iraq.

hey man...go to the source....

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

- Governor George Bush - Houston Chronicle - 4/9/99

By the way, Trash and Chuck -
Pi is still not 3.0.

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

...."Taliban no longer is in existence." - GWB Sept-2004

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction.." Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote:

Trash and Chuck;
The jihadis have a doctrine of "Just War" too. Glad you agree with them. Wish we could put you guys in Gitmo too. Along with the deluded worshippers of the Church of the Free Market, and their very similar twisted justifications for "Just War".
___________________

Well, OBF, it's always good to know where one stands with folks, but I hadn't realized you were so bloodthirsty. This is the first time I've heard someone claim that acknowledging the concept of Just War deserves imprisonment.

That's rather harsh, seeing as how much of international law is based on that concept. Does your invitation to Gitmo include all the members of militaries or merely the American military?

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." - Page 54 of George W. Bush's "A Charge to Keep"

According to "Pastor" Ted Haggard's personal gay male prostitute:

"He said a fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging in age from 18 to 22."

I don't think I've ever realized how much love God has for me until I saw those words appear on a TV screen mere days before the midterms. Thank you, Jesus!

From the email address, the AH post seems to be real. We are in deep shit if people still think like that.

AH isn't a real USAmerican. He was imported by the GOP.

Republican Culture of Corruption, Coverup, War-Profiteering, Bigotry, and Closeted Gay Sex.

You forgot Poland... er, Pedophilia.

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote:

By the way, Trash and Chuck -
Pi is still not 3.0.
_______________

Well, of course not... Oh, I get it. You want to drop the subject for lack of anything else reasonable to say. Well, sure, chum, glad to oblige.

Closeted pederast/public hatemonger Chuck wrote:
THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"?

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Gergen's suggestion is jaw-dropping naive.

Bush does not admit mistakes and he only appoints what I call umbilicytes. To put really bright, experienced, non belly button loyal people into positions of power is so totally anathematical to him. Has Gergen been asleep for the last six years?

When child George had a epoch making chance to pack the Supreme Court he chose an umbilicyte. Harriet Miers was non-challenging: that is Bush's critical criteria.

What the Democrats must do and eventually will have to do is perform a "Bureaucratic End Run."

The Democratic majority(s) will hold hearings with the Joint Chiefs on down in the Military and with Deputies (not Condi or Rumsfeld) from State and elsewhere. The resulting consensus from the hearings will be organized into a Mid East plan that can be forced into action by public acclaim and political will.

It's one hell of a way to steer a government but hey, Bush-Cheney et al disemboweled the legislative bodies. The time to disembowel the Executive branch can not come soon enough.

Chuck and Trashhauler both appear to be quoting without attribution from this page of "Catholic Answers".

Plagiarism seems to be rampant with the trools.

I'd like to quote other things from the same page (applications to the present conflict in Iraq left for the reader):

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

.

.

.

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.

.

.

.

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions.

President Bush has always said that his tactics are flexible even as "stay the course" is the overall strategy

"Stay the course" isn't a strategy, its a slogan, and apparently Bush's grasp of tactics is on a similar level to that kind of boneheaded misunderstanding of strategy.

this just in:

ABC News Confirms RNC Accepted Campaign Donations From Porn King...

also....

with ney's resignation....combine that with susan ralston and mark foley...

is that some kind of resignation record in the last 30-days?

i'm not counting sentencings for crawford or safavian..which also have occurred in the last 30-days...

gop: keeping the legal system busy

"Victory" is not a strategy, either. It is a desired outcome, but it is not a battle plan.

if bush were capable of being anything other than a complete ass, the nation wouldn't be in the horrible situations and conditions it is in now. So lets not be wasting too much time fantasizing about bush's conciliatory speeches.

A little less lie enabling and unrealty fantasizing, and little more reality-based analysis from the punditocracy couldn't have gone a long way in lessening the utter shitpool the cult of republicanism has created for the nation.
.

punditocracy "couldn't" have... should have been:
punditocracy "could" have...

See?

The economy in Iraq is doing so great, that many Iraqis are now taking vacations:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_refugees_iraq_1

Sorry, cmdicely for not even adding more to my posts

That's got to be the worst excuse for plagiarism I've ever heard.

here think I already post too much as it is

You post too much intellectually (and, too, just the plain variety) dishonest material.

Sourcing your direct quotes of other people's work would be an improvement (though, given the magnitude and diversity of your dishonesty, only a slight one.)

luckily, we have seperation of church and state here in America, so the Vatican doesn't get to tell us what to do.

Quick to point to a selective presentation of Catholic doctrine (without identifying the source) to defend your policy, but then equally quick to disavow the source once its pointed out the parts you admit are less friendly to that policy, aren't you?

Why do so many people insist on helping Troll Thomas earn his paycheck?

...luckily, we have seperation of church and state here in America, so the Vatican doesn't get to tell us what to do.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

note to Catholics who think they got it good under Bush:
When the Evangelicals are done burning all the Blacks, Gays, and Liberals, they're coming for "The Papists" next.

Sure, but did you ever hear Biden's excuse for plagiarism?

Oh, call the frickin' waaahmbulance.

Aren't you rightards supposed to be the "party of personal responsibility", not the "party of 'but, someone else once did something bad.'"

The real rollovers will be the Democratic leadership

It was the Democratic leadership who torpedoed the liberal candidate Cegelis in order to support Duckworth. The Democratic leadership rolled over many years ago from their liberal roots.

If Duckworth wins election, I expect her to become a supporter of trillion dollar defense budgets and a beneficiary of defense contractors' lobbyists. Like Murtha.

David Gergen, step away from the crack pipe.

The week before elections Bush is going to say electing Democrats is helping the terrorists and the week after the election Bush is going to say he wants input from Democrats?

Puh-leaze. Bush is going to do what he wants and the Democrats can either buy into it 100% or side with the terrorists.

Mr. Gergen, you are living in the past. You have clearly not absorbed the information of the post 9/11 Bush presidency. You should probably retire.

umbilicytes

Very clever and pleasing.

Why should any person, especially a Democrat, believe any THING Bush says! He lies every time he opens his mouth. There is NO reason to trust him even if he gave such a speech. Remember, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. Well, the Dems have been fooled way more times that two times. I think it is about time to stop being fooled by a congenital liar.

Bush wants a plan for Iraq?

OK. It starts with Bush admitting that the invasion was a mistake. And that the erroneous information used to justify the war was not an honest mistake but a deliberate mistake created by taking the known information and interpreting it in a biased manner. This mistake was made because the Bush administration had already decided it wanted to invade.

After this concession, we can begin to negotiate an end to the conflict. But until Bush takes responsibility and tells the truth there is no magical solution. He's manufactured a problem with no good outcomes.

Augustine provided one,crystallizing

This homosexual meth snorting priest thing goes back a long way.

Perhaps there ARE no women veteran Washington observers to be found, but in that case you should have altered your criterion. The fact that you have no women weighing in on what either party should do after the election is ridiculous.

Off topic: Three officers were killed today - two Lt. Colonels. They are targeting leadership. Sergeants and officers are being picked off.

A strategy for WINNING in Iraq:

1. Send only enough troops to piss the enemy off, but not enough to actually secure the country.
2. Continue to declare victory while the enemy loots unguarded weapons depots, and turns them on our troops.
3. Blame political opponents for lack of domestic unity.
4. Use war as an excuse to run up unprecedented deficit.
5. Take bribes from lobbyists to funnel bogus contracts to them.
6. Put as much of the borrowed US treasury into personal account in Barbados as possible.
7.Retire, and spend the rest of my life laughing at the morons who voted for me.

Carl Nyberg: . It starts with Bush admitting that the invasion was a mistake.

Today's New York Times inadvertantly showed why the Iraq war was the right thing to do. This article is meant to slam Bush for allowing Iraq's information on nukes to go out on the web. That's a fair criticism.

But, the article shows why Saddam was so dangerous. The Times says:

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

A year away? That sounds like an imminent threat. The world should be relieved that the US has eliminatd Saddam's nuclear potential.

Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away

Pretty stupid experts. All Saddam had were some lost documents left over from 1992. He had no uranium, no plutonium, no hardware, no facilities, and no real scientists.

This redacted "web site" scam is just another thinly-veiled election-timed stunt.

Is this all you got Rove? Pathetic.

Rumsfeld_ARMS_Terrorists: This redacted "web site" scam is just another thinly-veiled election-timed stunt.

Is this all you got Rove? Pathetic.

Uh, R.A.T., this doesn't come from Karl Rove's minions. It comes from the New York Times, who hate Bush.

At least chuckie and fauxliberal are modest about their time in the military - Understand they did great work together for "Active Duty Productions".

A year away? That sounds like an imminent threat. The world should be relieved that the US has eliminatd Saddam's nuclear potential.

Gawd, you wingnuts are dumb beyond belief. The article is referring to a year away from when GHWB invaded Iraq, not a year away from when GWB invaded Iraq.

Uh, R.A.T., this doesn't come from Karl Rove's minions. It comes from the New York Times, who hate Bush.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 3, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, sex-liberal, this story ORIGINATED from (proven torture-advocate, death-squad operator, and hater of democracy) Negroponte, who had the web site shut down, and spewed a press release about it.

The article is not specific about the documents. It talks about documents from 2002, and from the 1990's. But it doesn't talk about which era the supposedly "dangerous" documents are from. Hence, smells like more bullshit to me. The documents from 2002 might be a report on how much toilet paper was purchased for Iraqi federal buildings for all we know.

...it would become much harder for them to criticize the war effort

WHAT!

I don't think so.

Americans want a chance in Bushies "stay the course" and many voters want a chance in Iraq AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE VOTING FOR DEMS.

The magic word is going to be "mandate". NOW it will be the Dems word and it will be real.

The US People want to get out of Iraq, Bush has only to comply or else there is always impeachment, especially if an investigation shows that Bush covered up any number of things. Dems will have access to far too much on little Bushie for Bush to merely sit there like a stone.

Off topic: Three officers were killed today - two Lt. Colonels. They are targeting leadership. Sergeants and officers are being picked off.

Damn. I've been wondering when they were going to start doing that. Not good.

However, are we sure they weren't fragged?

Yeah. They were picked off. We have been watching the trend of Sgt.s and officers killed by snipers and small arms fire for a while now. They are getting bolder and going after the senior leaders in the field now. Just wait. There will be a Bird killed in action within 90 days.

As to fraggings, I don't think that is happening because there is no one there who didn't volunteer. But I am admittedly pro-military. it is literally the only life I had ever known until the Major retired, rather than serve under this C-in-C.

The article is referring to a year away from when GHWB invaded Iraq, not a year away from when GWB invaded Iraq.
Posted by: Disputo on November 3, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo:
More likely - the article is referring to a year away from when Clinton bombed the fuck out of Saddam's weapons sites.

Unfortunately, that action probably burned the receipts for the mustard gas Saddam bought from Rumsfeld. I wish Negroponte had posted THAT on the internet.

But this document dump was bogus to begin with:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/13/document_dump/

The government even posted a disclaimer:

the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein,

It was a boondoggle political stunt when they posted it - and it's a boondoggle political stunt now that they're pulling it.

Smarter trolls please.

Disputo: Gawd, you wingnuts are dumb beyond belief. The article is referring to a year away from when GHWB invaded Iraq, not a year away from when GWB invaded Iraq.

Disputo, I agree that it meant a year from when GHWB invaded Iraq. Still, it shows that Iraq had the technical expertise to build a bomb quickly. In 2002 there were no UN inspectors in Iraq. We couldn't know whether they were buying uranium or working on a bomb. The Times article implies that if Saddam got the raw materials, they would be able to build an A bomb relatively quickly. They almost did it in 1991; they could have done it again.

Incidentally, by 2003 the UN sanctions were not going to last much longer. More and countries were turning against them. With no sanctions, there would have been nothing to stop Saddam from importing uranium and building an A bomb.

Ummmm, as far as this Dems would kiss Bush's ass if he sounded conciliatory - WTF age does Gergen think we're living in? He might want to remember GW's f'd up line about "fool me once, uhhh fool me twice,uhhhh won't fool me again." Oh, yeah the Dems are going to just sit there and go "Ohhkay, Mr. Prezident, we set up the plan and you go out and call us traitors and blame all the problems on us while you go strutting in your flight suit with your codpiece at attention." Puhleeze.

R.A.T. The government even posted a disclaimer:

the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein,

Ah, but the New York Times has now validated the authenticity of the document. Their article says so.

ex-liberal:

God, you conservatives are pathetic, and utterly lacking in any historical reference. Anyone who knows anything about recent political history knows Saddam had the makings for WMDs back in 1990. That's because Bush’s dad sold them to him! You dumbass!

We know he had truly nasty weapons and technology. We know because we kept the receipts.

As to fraggings, I don't think that is happening because there is no one there who didn't volunteer.

Depends on what your definition of "stop lose" is, I suppose.

The reason I ask is because we are increasingly hearing the grunts complain about the war, and my guess is that it is only a matter of time before morale drops so low that someone takes it out up the coc.

Yeah. They were picked off. We have been watching the trend of Sgt.s and officers killed by snipers and small arms fire for a while now. They are getting bolder and going after the senior leaders in the field now. Just wait. There will be a Bird killed in action within 90 days.
Posted by: Global Citizen on November 3, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

SO glad Rummy sold all those .50 cal sniper rifles to Al Qaeda in the 1980's!

Dang it all, Conservative Deflator, don't you understand that Saddam was personally going to drop it on fauxliberal's outhouse? Can you not feel his pain. He built that outhouse with money from "Thrill Sergeants" with Norman and Chuckie.

Global, interesting that the Billings Gazette ran the large photo of Dumb and Dumber, er Bush and Burns, and a long story of the 5,000 in attendance. However, on the letters to the editor site, there was a letter from a Pub who criticized the paper for running negative letters against conservatives and the President by a rate of nine to one.

Yes they are complaining. I will give that. But I'm just not hearing it, and I spend part of every weekend watching football in the Officer's club. I hear open and frank, uncensored discussions.

Believe me, i love this country and every troop in uniform. If I had any notion it had come to that, i would be shouting it from the rooftops.

I thought the front-page layout was interesting. The flag-draped coffin of a native son above the fold and the twits below.

With no sanctions, there would have been nothing to stop Saddam from importing uranium and building an A bomb.

Except for the fact that he would not have been allowed to import uranium, and that he had no centrifuges, no tubes, not a single difficult-to-obtain element of a program takes years to build - except for all those things there'd he nothing stopping him.

And with no gravity there'd be nothing stopping you from simply floating away. Given your exaggerated fears, if I were you I'd chain myself in the basement. Away from the computer.

Smarter trolls please.

Come now, sad and deranged liberals--I'm smarter than any ten of you put together. While it is true that I misspell the occasional word, I'm entirely capable and quite brilliant.

Who wants some? Who wants a piece of me? You? Yes, you! You hangdog-faced little hippie!

Lean over here and let your uncle Norman explain how things really work--the Dumbocrats aren't going to win anything on Tuesday of next week, except for perhaps the booby prize when they fall short of taking the House and Senate.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Yes they are complaining. I will give that. But I'm just not hearing it, and I spend part of every weekend watching football in the Officer's club. I hear open and frank, uncensored discussions.
Posted by: Global Citizen on November 3, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Believe me, Global - when my Boss makes a stupid decision that prevents my team from getting a job done, we complain plenty. Some of us then change jobs. However, that's not really possible in the case of our troops.

No, they don't. And when those tours are extended it is violation of a sacred trust. But these guys know it isn't the fault of their commanders, because their tours have been extended too.

Like I said, I'm just not hearing it. yet anyway. That could all change tomorrow.

Every U.S. Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations has met its military objective(s)

Operation Together Forward, also known as Forward Together (in Arabic, Amaliya Ma’an ila Al-Amam), was a security plan in Iraq to significantly reduce the violence in Baghdad which had seen a sharp uprise since the mid-February 2006 bombing of the Askariya Mosque, a major Shiite Muslim shrine, in Samarra.

However, although highly touted at the time of its introduction, the plan seemingly failed to increase security in the capital as the high level of violence continued with a spate of major bombings (at least four such attacks with 40+ deaths each occurred in a one week period) and sectarian killings throughout June and July.

On 24 July 2006, it was announced that Prime Minister Maliki was heading to Washington, D.C. for talks about the security situation with President George W. Bush. The White House also publicly admitted for the first time that the Operation had been a failure, and that a new security strategy for Baghdad would be designed.

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

Operation Matador, while tactically a draw, was also considered a strategic success for the insurgents, and now insurgent and terrorist forces more or less have free rein in Anbar.

Believe me, Global - when my Boss makes a stupid decision that prevents my team from getting a job done, we complain plenty. Some of us then change jobs.

Yes, well, working the nightshift at Arby's is quite challenging. I'll bet that you had your heart set on slicing up the roast beef because the trimmings can be jammed into your vest pocket and nibbled on later when you're hiding in the toilet, unwilling to help the cleaning crew slop the floors clean. But, no! That dirty fellow named Chopper got the slicer and you had to work the drive-up and have drunks throw coins at you all night! How pathetic! And that cute girl who is semi-retarded and cleans up the dining room--mmm, she looks good in tight corduroys and a greasy polo shirt, doesn't she? If only you could convince her that your mom's car is really yours, well. You'd be on top of the world, eh?

A pity, I'm certain.

And you wonder why liberals can't find good jobs.

Hello? All this talk of a Democratic sweep is tiring. Does anyone remember that 40% of votes will be cast on Diebold machines, so pre-election polls do not matter.

On November 3, after the "surprising results" are in, the press will hoist Rove on their shoulder as the microtargeting genius, then they will heap accolades and celebrate Bush's popularity and long coat-tails, and everything will be as it was: fucked up.

Well, al-Sadr thought Operation Backward Together went quite well.

Global,

Did you see that the four papers for our troops, the Army Times, Air Force Times, the Navy Times and the Marine Corps Times are all going to call for the resignation of Rumsfeld in their Monday additions? It was just announced on Keith Olbermann.

Chuckie, actually I thought the return of the soldier killed in action was the bigger lead. Followed by the Arctic Wolf attack and the rollover of the State Trooper in Yellowstone, followed by the inmates who rioted at Deer Lodge receiving extra time on their sentences. These were followed by what again?

Sock puppet shift-change.

Well, it is about time that the puppets change their socks - Starting to smell up the joint.

All this talk of a Democratic sweep is tiring. Does anyone remember that 40% of votes will be cast on Diebold machines, so pre-election polls do not matter.

Typical liberal reasoning. It's not as if you've given anyone a reason to vote for you; and if you lose, ah-ha! Now you can say that the voting machine ate your homework after the dog shit on it.

Pathetic! And you wonder why you never win anything.

Sock puppets?

No, that's your man rmck1's thing. Where did he go? Did the laundry foul up his Member's Only Jacket again?

It's a shame you can't come up with a liberal who can think clearly! I'm still chortling over his call for class warfare!

Norman, you have not won a conquest since Hastings. No, not the Battle of, but in the men's room in the basement of Hastings Law School. Taking down that 70 year old janitor was quite remarkable.

Taking down that 70 year old janitor was quite remarkable.

What? It was a thirty year old in a wheelchair and the man had it coming to him for parking too close to my vehicle.

The police said I was well within my rights to kick him down three flights of stairs--he had a warrant out for his arrest for shoplifting and we wrote it off as a citizen's arrest, albeit, one that was a bit zealous. See, your uncle Norman is a bit cagey when it comes to kicking ass and taking names--and I'm all out of things on which to write down the names.

And you wonder why you libs are afraid to tangle with me.

If the Democrats win - Bush will not reach across lines for support. He will hunker down with Cheney and Rumsfeld and ride out the storm from his bunker. I predict two exhaustive years of fireworks and mindless confrontation with Congress. All eyes will rejoice for 2008.

The Conservative Deflator: That's because Bush’s dad sold them to him! You dumbass!

First of all, the US sold Iraq conventional weapons, not nukes, during their war against Iran.

Second, if Iraq had the ability to go nuclear in a relatively short time, then they were a threat. The threat would be the same, no matter who was to blame for selling them the technology 20 years earlier.

trex wrote: Except for the fact that he would not have been allowed to import uranium

Note the passive construction. Who would not have allowed him? Would the UN have stoped him? No. Would Europe have stopped him. No. Would Russia and China have stopped him? Ha ha! The only party that would have stopped Saddam from importing uranium was the US. Fortunately for the world, we did.

fauxliberal,

Your misreading and mislearning comprehension are quite remarkable - These were from GHWB's time - However, Shrub and the wheat farmer from Kansas Pat Robertson decided to overrule Negroponte and the intelligence community by placing them on the net where any nation, Iran ring a bell, NK, ring a bell, or any othe nut nation could read the blue prints, you dumb fuck.

Shrub put this country at great risk.
They only took this down two days ago after it was, very bravely, printed in the NYT.
Shrub only really "cares" about protecting this country when he is on the campaign trail and swilling to his pet hogs.

Now, little braveheart, tell us about your work in "Thrill Sergeants". Probably the only time you ever put on a military uniform.

Oh for fuck's sake, you idiot, the U.N. backed brutal economic sanctions on Saddam for thirteen years, they would have easily prevented him from purchasing enriched uranium.

You're almost continuously forced to retract your idiotic nonsense; don't you have any self-respect?

ex-liberal:

Why are you using the tired old facts about the nuclear weapons program? Everyone knows that the Israelis ended the Iraqi nuclear program at Osirisk, and rightly so.

We suspected Saddam Hussein of possessing viable and not degraded or outdated weapons of mass destruction to include biological and chemical weapons; ascertaining whether he still had these items in his inventory where they could be deployed against targets in the region or throughout the world via freighters or oil tankers, that was FAR more of a deadly threat than a stopped nuclear program.

Can't anyone from my side of the aisle play this game, either? I swear, am I the only one who knows anything around here?

Sheesh! As they say...

Oooo la la, Thrill Sargeants?

Ex-liberal,

You wouldn't happen to be a young college guy 18 to 22 years old?

Got meth?

Paul-3: I did see that. It's all over Aravosis' blog. As to reasons to vote for the Dems, I count more than 2800.

The claims about Iraq being one year from obtaining nukes is bullshit.

But even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, so what?

If we can live with the Soviet Union, PRC, UK, France, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea all having nuclear weapons, what's the big deal if Iraq had them too?

Sweet Jesus in Heaven--

"Doogie Howser" is gay? What is this world coming to?

And you wonder why you libs aren't going to win anything on Tuesday--this country is going to hell in a handbasket because of the insidious nature of deviant sex being available to anyone, anywhere for about eighty dollars.

Bah!

"Doogie Howser" is gay? What is this world coming to?

Was he getting massages from gay prostitutes and buying meth but not using it like Ted Haggard? 'Cause apparently that's the latest rage in family values, and Doggie Stylzer -- I mean "Doogie Howser's" show was very family oriented.

I'm still trying to figure out this newfangled Christopublican morality. What I've got so far: you can be as gay as a handbag full of rainbows, you just can't admit that you are.

And apparently it helps if you have a megachurch in which you preach every week that homosexuals are going to hell, just before you head off to the hotel to bang Dancer #3 from "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat."

deviant sex being available to anyone, anywhere for about eighty dollars.

"about" eighty dollars is what makes it funny!

Allow me to explain to you liberals the way things work in this world. Pay attention because I'm not going to spam threads and waste time.

A hypothetical because I said so: The Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein is safely in power today because he has not been deposed; a liberal President occupies the White House and the country is enthralled with deviant sex. Gas is five dollars a gallon, the tax rate is 80% and no one can remember a time when there weren't glaciers covering the Great Lakes.

Actor Neil Patrick Harris has a secret--a secret that he has only shared with several dozen young men and a few much older men who gave him parts in movies that went straight to video. Saddam Hussein knows this--the man was tapped into the Hollywood grapevine. So he decides to hatch a plot so fiendish as to be cleverly insane, but not so cleverly insane that it wouldn't unravel and fall apart out of sheer audacity.

Saddam Hussein pays a funboy to trap Neil Patrick Harris as a Motel 6. Several dozen bananas and a gallon of Crisco later, photos are taken and a grainy video is shot through a crack in the drapes. The poor fellow is now forced to do Saddam Hussein's bidding. So what does the dictator of Iraq, who has been emboldened by the inactions of a liberal President who is obsessed with boobies and fried food?

He forces actor Neil Patrick Harris to be a mule. A WMD mule. He forces this once-proud and talented young man to transport VX nerve gas into the New York City subway system and then open the cannisters and pour them into the ventilation system. Tens of thousands of homeless people, who usually vote Dumbocratic if the precinct boss can cough up twenty bucks, being to convulse and expire.

I wake up every morning and thank God for George W Bush, and you should as well. I thank the Lord above that we are protected from our enemies and safe in our land.

And you liberals wonder why no one is buying your pantload of hate this year.

Ignore my typos in the above--you know what I meant and you better be certain of your own infallibility before you tangle with me.

I'm in a foul mood and no one has shown me the least bit of deference today.

and no one can remember a time when there weren't glaciers covering the Great Lakes.

...causing Michigan's economy to thrive, robust from ice fishing and year around winter sports....

The best line though:

Actor Neil Patrick Harris has a secret--a secret that he has only shared with several dozen young men and a few much older men who gave him parts in movies that went straight to video.

Hi-larious.

The deaths of tens of thousands from VX gas is hilarity?

Proof popsitive that the libs don't care about defending this great nation!

Proof positive, it should read.

Son of a bitch, this is making me angry.

Go to hell, liberals. I'm tired of trying to straighten you out.

It's getting so you can't tell the trolls from the fake trolls from the fake fake trolls.

Bah!

Go to hell, libs! Just go to hell and die!

George W. Bush and Republicans have already lost the war in Iraq. The only debate is how many more Americans have to die before we withdraw. If nothing changes, the Republicans will also have lost the war in Afganistan by 2008. Republicans can not be trusted with the security of the United States.

Wet t-shirt contest in Hungary. Nice Wetlook Pictures and wetlook celebrity photos.

For credibililty's sake, when is someone of national stature ever going to ask these pundits of ill-repute where they were relative to the Invasion of Iraq?

For example, we all know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a bogus artifice, just as the AUMF was a bogus artifice. Therefore, did any of these proud members of Punditocracy, ever advocate a Declaration of War in keeping with our national constitution in the run-up to the Invasion of Iraq? Or for the sure purpose of seeking out the "unassailable" facts? Not likely, but then, no one has ever had the audacity to ask, or so it seems.

Without asking the First Question of Importance, anything less speaks to the lesser-ether of credibility.

Of course, those of us as iconoclastic Adobe Dwellers of the Sonoran Desert, preach our Common Sense and tend to jettison folks who attempt to maintain their fictional membership in the Punditocracy.

C'mon Washington Monthly, you can do better, but it take a tad more effort. Don't shame us all.

ex-lib: Saddam was so dangerous.

you can see it here...

1991 invasion used a coalition with more than 400,000 troops

flash forward to saddam with wmd's and reconstituted nukes?

2003 invasion used a coalition of under 180,000 troops

see how strong the threat was...

nr: "Doogie Howser" is gay?

i didn't know he was a republican..

Actor Neil Patrick Harris has a secret--a secret that he has only shared with several dozen young men and a few much older men who gave him parts in movies that went straight to video.

You seem to be quite a trite and rather predictable ass. Tell me, is making fun of one’s sexuality and then making unfounded charges about their moral behavior part of your modus operandi? Who taught you such ignorant behavior, your mother?

Please go away until you can pay for enough therapy allowing you to behave appropriately with adults.

Keith G,

That was not the real vermin named Norman - A parody of hypocrisy in the Publican Party.

I agree that trying to make comedy about one's sexuality is in extremely poor taste. However, is it not strange that so many closet doors are opening in the party which so disparages gays?

If the same were occurring in the Democratic Party, the Pubs and their fellow travelers would be having a field day of this on FAUX and the net.

I say, let all of the doors open - We have a very large tent and all are welcomed - Well, perhaps some have a bit of a problem with Christians, but...........

人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 美女裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 写真集 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

mr. irony - Many thought defeating Saddam would be extremely difficult, due to his enormous weapons store, large army, the difficult desert conditions, etc. Bush and Rumsfeld were right about the weakness of Saddam's army in 2003. It's ironic that Rumsfled's correct prediction of the ease of defeating Saddam led to a dreadful miscalculation of the difficulty of the post-war occupation.

Regardless of the weakness of Saddam's army, if he had nuclear weapons, the whole middle east balance of power would have changed. E.g., he would be able to invade Kuwait and use the threat of nukes to deter the west from interfering.

As we used to say in the anti-war movement, one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

Regardless of the weakness of Saddam's army, if he had nuclear weapons

Yeah, if. If he had giant space lasers we'd truly be fucked.

And if assholes had wings the White House would be an airport. So what?

if he had nuclear weapons...

ex-liberal, you poor thing. If your fantasies were realities you be both ultra-rich and dismembered in some Islamofascists basement.

Many thought defeating Saddam would be extremely difficult

Many?? Like who, for instance? Certainly not Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman:

In January’s Vanity Fair, Mr. Adelman told David Rose that when he wrote in 2002 that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk,” he “just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.”

Why is it you keep ignoring those little red flags persistently popping up and warning you that you're ignorant and ill-informed?

cmdicely wrote:

Chuck and Trashhauler both appear to be quoting without attribution from this page of "Catholic Answers".

Plagiarism seems to be rampant with the trools.
__________________

cm, I think if you check, you'll find quotation marks around the information I used. Perhaps not up to Turabian standards, but more than most use and a request for a cite would have gotten one. If you are in the mood for casual insults, feel free. You cannot be more critical of me than I am of myself.

On the subject of trolling, whether one is a troll is somewhat a matter of definition, don't you think? Mere disagreement shouldn't qualify. Nor does an honest desire for discussion. But you go ahead and call 'em as you see 'em. Everybody must.

trex wrote:

"(Quoting someone) 'name ONE SINGLE military battle we've lost'

The ongoing insurgency. It is a military battle being fought in the streets of Iraq as we speak. WTF do you think is killing our soldiers?

Also, Operations Lightning and Black Thunder and Rum Drunk and every other when that was supposed to once and for all kill all the terrorists and stop the fighting.

Next."
_______________

trex, you're a bit confused about the difference between a campaign, a military operation, and a battle. The ongoing insurgency is a campaign, not a single battle. The operations you mention all include some combat, but other elements, as well.

No single operation has the goals of killing all the terrorists once and for all and to stop the fighting. All military operations have measurable minimum and maximum goals. The latter are seldom met entirely in any operation. As in all things, some are more sucessful than others.

Your "Next" is a bit premature, since you didn't actually dispose of the issue.

Your "Next" is a bit premature, since you didn't actually dispose of the issue.

Actually, if you read a little further down I disposed of it nicely. First of all, the wikidiot clarified his position to mean "any counter-insurgency operation."

Well, Operations Together Forward and Matador are two right off the bat that failed.

Secondly, one can look at a half a dozen other operations which the U.S. won by tactical means -- for about five minutes, after which the insurgents flooded back in upon our departure.

And finally and most importantly, the "battle for Iraq" was never won, but is simply being fought by other means in the streets. If you and the sociopath want to say that we didn't lose any military engagements against Saddam Hussein's army -- great. I have no idea what you think that's worth in the real world -- but great.

That and a cup of coffee will get you an insurgency and bloody sectarian war in the Middle East, over which we have no control.

trex:

I think "wikipidiot" is a tad more sibillant, don't you? :)

Bob

Bob, absolutely, thanks for the suggestion. I'll be using that form from now on.

ex-lib: It's ironic that Rumsfled's correct prediction of the ease of defeating Saddam led to a dreadful miscalculation of the difficulty of the post-war occupation.

don't take my word for it...

"We never had enough troops on the ground to keep order in Iraq, and both George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld knew it." - Paul Bremer 1/8/06

...the only war strategy Democrats have propounded resembles that of the French...mhr at 11:37 AM