Or, possibly, he was just playing for expectations.

I'm with BRussell. I think they threw out an inflated figure so they could claim a victory when the number came down well short of 60. Kind of like their numbers for the federal deficit.

Only 17 republicans have been duped by the Democrats and media. Suck it, libs.

Gilchrest was on the antisurge side, though.

...Wayne Gilchrist (R-Md) predicted that 30 to 60 Republicans would vote for the nonbinding House resolution opposing the surge.

That was the message he/the GOP wanted in the media to fool the public that Repubs aren't really Bush's rubber stamps.

Um, Al. Abraham Lincoln never, ever said that. Why are Rethugs so damn dumb?

Check out this link for a thorough history of how this stupid comment came to be attributed to Lincoln: www.factcheck.org/article415.html.

Al, Real or not, you are Wrong As Usual. Lincoln never said any such thing; the quote was manufactured by Michael Waller. See http://www.factcheck.org/article415.html.

So long as we're discussing those who take actions that damage morale and undermine the military, remember that your beloved President stands guilty of sending insufficient numbers of troops into harms way with inadequate armor and without a plan to win the war. You can't pin that on Democrats and you know it.

It may be that there are some 30-60 Reps who oppose the surge, but opposed the resolution as well. I think the leadership found some tool or issue that they used to bring some of those Reps back to the fold. For example, we heard about what Heather Wilson (R-NM) was opposing the surge, because she thought that the resolution was not expressing support for troops that will go into Iraq in the future.

We may get a better picture of this when the supplement comes up.

American Hawk,

Unfortunately for you and your hypocritical, blind and foolish ilk the American people are with the Democrats on this issue. And I think if Reps don't figure this out soon 2008 is going to look like 2006 but better.

lets hear what the iraqi ambassador to the UN thinks about the surge,

"If 140,000 American troops plus British and over 20 other nationalities' forces, plus Iraqi armed forces, Iraqi police force, if all those cannot secure Baghdad, the capital, I dont think that 20,000 will make a big, big difference," Bayati said.

why are we adding these troops if even the iraqis don't think it will work?!?

http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Iraqi_Ambassador_surge_wont_help_Baghdad_0216.html

Here is what the swampland had to say:

Republican sources tell me that wavering members moved back into line after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday signaled her support for a move by Congressman John Murtha, the war opponent who chairs the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, to put restrictions on the additional Iraq money that Bush is expected to request next month.

The answer is both. Unusual armtwisting by the WH, and intentionally raising expectations so that when the # comes in much lower, it seems like a "defeat" for the Democrats. However, when it comes to "defeat," we will see how many of those Republic party congresspeople think of their vote after election day in 2008.

It looks like being in the minority may be making Republicans less likely to break ranks.

I wonder if Democrats will be able to hold together when the real funding votes start.

Who were the 2 Dems that voted against the resolution?

mhr: These are the same Democrats who immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center blamed the US.

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this (9-11) because God will not be mocked." - Rev. Jerry Falwell

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them helped this (--9-11--) happen." - Rev. Jerry Falwell

Pat Robertson agreed, adding, "Jerry, that's my feeling." and "Well, I totally concur."

Falwell and Robertson are both Republicans NOT Democrats

Teresa said: Um, Al. Abraham Lincoln ...

At first, I thought the comment by Al about Abraham Lincoln must have been in another thread. But your post here confilms it: Kevin or his mods are censoring conservatives again. Why delete the Lincoln quote? Is it because he was a republican president?

So mhr, when did Dinesh D'Souza and Jerry Falwell become Democrats?

"Why delete the Lincoln quote? Is it because he was a republican president?"

Prolly 'cause it's not a Lincoln quote. It's a fabricated quote, falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Jim Marshall (GA) & Gene Taylor (MS)

"I'm proud of my role in the formation of a party founded on such noble principles. However, I fear that in a short 150 years, our party will so degenerate that its national representation will be a pack of liars, thieves and perverts, led by a man unfit to govern himself, let alone the Nation."--Abraham Lincoln

Okay Patrick, interesting theory. I'll test it by posting another fake Lincoln quote that was used by anti-war liberals:

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except its ending." [That's from Star Trek, and was said by the character playing a version of Abraham Lincoln in "Savage Curtain".]

If this doesn't get deleted, then it must be because it's a fake quote that liberals happen to agree with. We'll see.

It would be much easier if they just didn't delete posts. IF they insist on doing so, though, let's try to find out what the rules are, since they're not telling us.

when did an anti-war liberal ever use that quote and attribute it to Lincoln?

I mean, we have a wingnut congress-critter waxing nostalgic about hanging fellow americans just 2 days ago ... I'm sure even the Foreign Hawk can locate a link of someone using that quote in the context of being anti-war.

99% of democratic house members supported the resolution. How can that be viewed as anything other than a political and to some extent a dishonest vote? Here we have a military strategy developed by highly intelligent and responsible military officers. It may or may not be a good military strategy. But no group of 230 honest people upon considering the merits of the strategy would split 228 to 2 against it. So, it seems undeniable that democrats are playing politics with an issue of national security/military tactics.

I'm not saying republicans necessarily would do better, and I realize that the 182 to 17 against the resolution is also influenced by politics, but I wish there were some grown ups (other than Lieberman) in the democratic party who would stop this stuff.

Al-Zawahiri and Bin Ladin thank the Democrats who voted to surrender to them in Iraq.

Actually, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden thank the Republican president who was too cowardly to go after them in Pakistan.

Nads-- It was reported by the AP. I found it via archive.org and the chicago sun times:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204014715/http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-linc29.html

Here's another fake Lincoln quote: "There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except its ending." Attributed to Lincoln by anti-war protesters earlier this year, the statement actually was made by an actor portraying Lincoln in an episode of "Star Trek."

American Hawk, didn't even know my post was deleted. Thanks for defending me. But here's something Kevin wrote some time ago.

Link

"Yes, my comment section might be full of trolls and their vitriol, but anyone who has a factual disagreement with what I write has a forum to point it out in the same place as the post itself."

I guess he doesn't believe in that any more. No doubt this comment will be deleted soon also so that no one can read it.

Al
...

Interesting (and by interesting I mean, of course, crazy and insipid) that the more people disagree with a policy the more that's a sign that the policy is correct....

AMERICAN HAWK: Why delete the [fake] Lincoln quote? Is it because he was a[n] [old-style] republican president?

Brian,

70% of the country has said they disagreed with the president on this issue. It's not like throwing a penny up in the air. The overwhelming support of this resolution by the Democrats is not surprising nor is it some conspiracy. Now, it is political, but so is every action on the floor of the House. That's why the House is there.

As an earlier commenter noted, Gilchrest was one of the 17.

By predicting 30-60 he was probably trying to convince a few fence-sitters that they should come over to his side.

Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment - Thou shalt never speak ill of another Republican.

Conservatives are lemmings...

Birdbrain:

Apart from the fact that your link doesn't work, you continue your disingenuousness by equating some random war protester's placard with an article in a major newspaper which gets spread all across freeperland and lands on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Damn, you're stupid.

...Only 17 republicans have been duped... American Suck at 6:26 PM

70% of the country has said they disagreed with the president on this issue.

Why are 70% of Americans un-American?

Gomer,

I know. Those heartless bastards don't care that their parents and they have fought for this country.

Jim Marshall is my representative. He won by 1-2% of the vote. (I was surprised those poll trackers didn't follow it, because it was always a very close race.)

Mr Marshall gets weak knees when he sees a military parade, but overall he's not an idiot. His opponent was a total Bush-bitch; he had the POtuS come to this district twice last fall, which was great for us protesters. "Welcome to the M (picture of a peach) state, Mr President."

If Mr. Marshall goes any left of Lincoln Chafee, he'll get replaced by a blow-hard R -- so, I'll take it up the ass this time. The opportunity cost is staggering.

Nads-- It was reported by the AP. I found it via archive.org and the chicago sun times:

... Attributed to Lincoln by anti-war protesters earlier this year, the statement actually was made by an actor portraying Lincoln in an episode of "Star Trek."
Posted by: American Hawk

... really ... that's the best example you've got? some random "anti-war protesters"??? Good job, I suppose.

I mean, it doesn't rise to the level of a hitjob in the WaTimes or on the fucking floor of the House by ignorant repub reps, but I suppose it feeds your paranoid view of equivalence.

I suppose the reason your fake Lincoln quote wasn't deleted was because you identified it as fake, whereas Al didn't, in a (presumably) deliberate attempt to mislead.

How can it possibly be a bad thing that only 17 Republicans voted in favor of the resolution?

Look, 17 is enough to imply strongly that it wasn't a purely partisan vote.

And the more Republicans that want to support the escalation, the better.

2008 can't come soon enough for them; they will be pigs at the slaughter.

Actually, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden thank the Republican president who was too cowardly to go after them in Pakistan.

I also thank the Republican president for removing US troops out of Saudi Arabia, as I demanded.

OBL

I agree with frankly0.

I would like to officially and publicly encourage all Republicans to follow GWB over the Iraqi cliff.

Here we have a military strategy developed by highly intelligent and responsible military officers.

No, in the military strategy developed by highly intelligent and responsible military officers, as Kevin posted recently, the US would have had well over 100,000 more troops in Iraq than it has ever had in this war at the outset of phase 4, not be dithering over a slight bump to well below that much greater strength well into phase 4.

At the same time, I would like to encourage the Dems should set up an underground railroad for Republicans who want to escape the ideological slavery of their party.

I don't like the term Dixiecrat used on Jim Marshall. He's definitely a Blue Dog, but probably not a Dixiecrat. The Dixiecrats embraced the anti-Civil Rights movement until the 80's, when republicans won over those voters. Meanwhile, Blue dogs are fairly conservative, but not defined by racial stances.

Doesn't seem to matter because it is still a wrench throw into into Bushies monkey works.

And maybe Dems weren't actually too worried that many Repugs didn't tag along since it indicates that Repugs are simply not capible of consider a change in Bush's "stay the course" policy.

In fact, we could use McCain as the gage you could use to measure what, if any, Bushie ass kissing will get you if you'er a Repug Preznut candidate. Bush successfully divided the Repugs so very well that the Repugs lost the center, getting it back is basically an impossiblity.

McCain may fly in the South with white males but Rudy Giuliani 'will not, so that Repugs will have to either change course, or lose big time in 2008. It's a win-win for Dems and Howard Dean has a very good hand to play if he goes after the Libertarian,, Senator Webb style candidates.

I have to wonder how long it will it take for Repugs to figure out that Bush isn't simply a lame duck but a "smoked" duck - you could stick a fork in em, cuase he's a done Preznut.

Republicans are just not good at independent thinking.

McCain may fly in the South with white males but Rudy Giuliani 'will not

Just wait til the video surfaces of Johnie in drag. That should even the playing field....

Noah,

I guess 99% democrat vote is not surprising, but it basically is dishonest. If democrats were voting their true princples and beliefs about whether the surge is a good ideal, the vote would not be 99% against it.

I think the House Dem strategy is a good one- get the Repubs on record regarding the escalation. If they vote for the bill they'll likely get primary'd for 2008, which may open up seats. If they vote against it, they'll anchor themselves tighter to a war that will likely get more and more unpopular which will work against them in the general. Meanwhile, Murtha's subcommittee can tie further funding to requirements for troop and National Guard rotation and equipment requirements that will result in reduced troop levels. It'll be hard for anyone to vote against making our troops SAFER. If Bush vetoes he won't get any money at all, or would have to take money away from Star Wars or fighter plane construction. Dem's don't have to worry about backlash as a vast majority in the country want the troops out anyway.

If democrats were voting their true princples and beliefs about whether the surge is a good ideal, the vote would not be 99% against it.
Posted by: Brian

Why not?

If democrats were voting their true princples and beliefs about whether the surge is a good ideal, the vote would not be 99% against it.

right, it could be as high as 99.5% against it. Or maybe even 100%.

Your guys lost and the American people reject your policies, corruption, and incompetence. Deal with it.

Ah, Kevin.

The 17 or so Republicans who voted for the bill are probably Northeastern Rhinos who are just as bad as any libby Dumbocrap. All of them can't be trusted. Their turncoats as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just sitting here laughing at another Demonrat defeat. The country repudiats you again!

come on guys, you're not serious about not understanding why an honest vote would not be 99% against the surge, are you? If all you are interested in is politics, fine. But if you're genuinely interested in whether this is a good idea as a military tactic, then honest people would not break 99 to 1 against it. Heck, I don't even think Castro and Sadaam got 99% in their "elections." And some these leading democrats were talking about more troops themselves about 60 days ago.

you cannot be much of a lawyer if your argument boils down to an argument from incredulity.

you've given no evidence why the logical reaction for reasonable people in response to an offer for escalating the illegal invasion of Iraq (under the auspices of the very liars who started it) should not be rejection.

These days Republicans in Congress are run from the political office of the White House -- i.e. Rove. As proof of that, consider recent comments by Dick Armey, former Republican majority leader:

About his own vote for the resolution to go to war, he said: "Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself, and my party and my country better, though, had I done so."

He is clearly saying that voting according to his best judgement went against "the duties of majority leader". What are these duties? No doubt to execute Rove's orders, if you are a Republican.

Seems to me that if someone is posting fake quotes it is much more effective to expose their tactics than to delete their comments. Deleting one side of an argument for anyhting other that hate speech, gratuitous vulgarity, or spamming, seems wrong to me.

Link to Armey's comments.

Nads: If democrats were voting their true princples and beliefs about whether the surge is a good ideal, the vote would not be 99% against it.
Posted by: Brian
????
Why not?

Because they voted to confirm Gen. Petraeus after he explained the plan to them. And because they are voting non-binding resolutions. They are not going to do anything that actually impedes the surge for months yet, though Murtha is working on a measure that might or might not be adopted in a few weeks.

I see.

The reality of repub obstructionism is, sadly, still something that needs to be dealt with.

Seems to me that if someone is posting fake quotes it is much more effective to expose their tactics than to delete their comments. Deleting one side of an argument for anyhting other that hate speech, gratuitous vulgarity, or spamming, seems wrong to me.

Several of "Al's" comments have been deleted recently. My guess is that the evil spammer Charlie/Thomas, who became persona non grata here several weeks ago, posted those comments as "Al". He has tried to weasel his way back here before by pretending to be a regular.

Olbermann gave Sen Ted Stevens of Alaska the Worst Person in the World award for citing that false Lincoln quote on the Senate floor.

Olbermann led with the House vote - Michelle Malkin, sitting in for BillO, led with Anna Nicole's Follies - Did not get around to the House vote until almost 38 minutes into her entertainment fluff hour - Did one of those very common two on one numbers - Had some bimbo from the Repugs, KellyAnne Conway, to help her attack the Democratic spokesperson - The two Retards said that the vote was meaningless and silly. Wonder when Oberlin College will have the sense to recall her diploma.

Disputo-- My comments have been deleted too. Anybody right of Kucinich who posts in the first ten or so comments has a pretty good chance of getting 'disappeared'.

The usual phone calls."How's your wife/partner and kids doing? Tell them to be safe.It's a dangerous world.Hey! I saw your old girl/boy friend the other day.You all have broken up haven't you? Nice talking to you."

R.L., I suspect it goes more like this: "You want to get reelected, right?"

Here's my favorite apocryphal Lincoln quote:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time... you can't get fooled again!"

Hoping always I am not a target of deletion, I wish to offer some insight as a conservative as to why Republicans may firm up a bit and circle our wagons around the beleaguered White House.

First of all, if you had asked me three months ago who blew up the Golden Mosque at Samarra, I would surely have said the Sunnis. Now I am not so sure but Iran ordered and paid for that attack in order to inflame Shia opinion to the enhancement of those militias Iran wished to favor. I am also thinking that Iran has been behind most of the recent killings of Americans, including the raids in which well-supplied terrorists pretend to be Americans, and all the successful anti-helicopter and anti-armor attacks.

The Sunni and Al Qaida factions seem to be only capable of improvising car bombs and setting up suicide bombers so as to kill lots and lots of civilians. Maybe they get a sniper shot on an American soldier now and then, but they aren't terribly high tech and they aren't doing much except running up the civilian body count. Maybe this is why Israel is reportedly in secret negotiations with Syria, because the Israelis sense that the Syrian Baathists are indeed not out to conquer the world right at the moment, but may be satisfied to make Lebanon part of greater Syria, get back the Golan Heights, and leave Israel alone.

Soooo, Iran is the major problem. Bush is Commander in Chief until January, 2009 and he is going to deal with Iran his way. If Democrats or even a maverick Republican start posturing about how wonderful it would be to let Iran do anything Ahmadinejad wants, the posturer will be hanging their ass out a mile.

My guess is that however the final confrontation comes down, Iran is not going to come across as a sympathetic victim to the American people or world public opinion in general. They are going to come across as reckless provocateurs who hung their own butts out and found the one American political leader who will kick it to the moon.

Al, you are so dense you can't see that you have explained why your earlier post was deleted

""Yes, my comment section might be full of trolls and their vitriol, but anyone who has a factual disagreement with what I write has a forum to point it out in the same place as the post itself."

I guess he doesn't believe in that any more. No doubt this comment will be deleted soon also so that no one can read it."

The quote attributed to Lincoln wasn't factual, for crying out loud. It was totally made up--and you are not even expressing any remorse about using a fraudulent quote to support your argument!

It has nothing to do with disagreement, just perpetuating blatant misinformation.

I'm not so sure that the reelection nudge is enough right now.

My comments have been deleted too. Anybody right of Kucinich who posts in the first ten or so comments has a pretty good chance of getting 'disappeared'.

Well good. Perhaps the mods have finally taken my advice to do something about you vultures trolls with the two second update cycles on your RSS readers who regularly kill threads in the womb.

You can sit in the back of the bus every now and then with the rest of us. It won't kill you.

Not deleted, mike ... but falsehoods should be highlighted:

One Year Later, Golden Mosque Is Still in Ruins

Many residents here have come to believe an alternative version of how the attack occurred, blaming Iranian agents and pointing to the fact that the attackers were wearing commando uniforms. But there is no evidence to support that theory.

No evidence, but still somehow mike feels that Iran, the new sand-nigger du jour, is responsible, and AWOL is just the great white cowboy to deal with it.

conservatives circle the wagon because they take comfort in the sharing of their delusional, bigoted worldviews. they've tied themselves to a redneck president whom the rest of the civilized world sees as the worthless, drunk deserter that he is.

they cannot see how he's pulling their party down, and I'm not inclined to clue them in. they're still riding the corpses of dead soldiers and civilians ... let them rot.

Now I am not so sure but Iran ordered and paid for that attack in order to inflame Shia opinion to the enhancement of those militias Iran wished to favor. I am also thinking that Iran has been behind most of the recent killings of Americans, including the raids in which well-supplied terrorists pretend to be Americans, and all the successful anti-helicopter and anti-armor attacks.

Man, you're mainlining the koolaid, arncha?

What it must be like to have a brain that is so easily shaped by obvious WH agitprop.

Lots of Americans will be sympathetic to President Bush after he orders an attack on Iran.

So you say.

Here's about lots of Americans:

Lots of Americans, lots and lots and lots, will find themselves waiting in mile-long lines for rationed $5.00 a gallon gasoline.

And with oil topping $100 a barrel:

Lots of Americans, lots and lots and lots, will find themselves wiped out financially as the stock market crashes.

Lots of Americans, lots and lots and lots, will find their credit cards maxed out at Wallmart as they attempt to pay for food that has increased in price almost overnight by 500 percent.

Lots of Americans, lots and lots and lots (you fill in the blanks -- and don't forget the hefty jobs cuts, university closings, etc., etc.).

So, Bush will fix things by kicking ass in Iran?
Sure, he'll fix things, all right.

And all this in the months leading up to the 2008 elections.

Shorter Disputo: Only liberals deserve free speech!

Is it possible, and I'm just throwing out a suggestion -- spitballing if you will -- here, that events on the ground have convinced many of those who were wavering to stand firm?

Could it be that Muqtada al-Sadr's departure to Iran because he was worried for his own life be evidence that the surge will have the desired short-term effect on violence touted by the administration?

I love the smell of hypothesis in the morning.

I love the smell of hypothesis in the morning.
Posted by: Inigo Montoya

probably because it smells better to you than reality.

What does hypothesis smell like?

Shorter Disputo: Only liberals deserve free speech!

LMAO. It never fails. Anytime a wingnut loses his privileged position and actually has to slum it with the rest of us, the first thing he does is cry censorship and discrimination. You can set your watch by it.

This is private property, AH, and last time I checked in this country the owner of property is allowed to utilize it pretty much as they see fit. Take your Stalinist urges elsewhere -- like back to whatever hellhole it was you came from.

jimmy nailed it, and it is for those reasons that I doubt the GWB admin will actually attack Iran; much safer (for their own necks) to have a proxy do it.

Why then gin up the anti-Iran insanity? To help head off the demands to retaliate -- against Israel -- when the world econ tanks.

I copied and pasted this from an article called "Groups"
With Democrats holding 233 seats in the House, to 201 for the
Republicans (one seat became vacant this week with the death of
Charles Norwood, a Georgia Republican), the outcome today was widely
anticipated.

Unlike the Senate, the House does not operate under rules that allow a
sufficiently large minority to hold off votes indefinitely through a
filibuster. The Senate, where a resolution was stalled last week by
parliamentary maneuvering, will convene in a rare Saturday session
this weekend, when the Democratic leaders hope to force a debate on
the resolution.

Inigo Montoya >"...I love the smell of hypothesis in the morning."

I`m surprised you can even spell it given the ignorance you display in the rest of the post.

Smart people lay very low when the occupying force announces several weeks ahead of time what their plans are for a big publicity focused search & mess around move.

How is that swallowing ReThuglican propaganda whole working for ya ?

Amazin the ignorance displayed here...

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair

Brian,

regarding your post of 9:27. it is true that Stalin and Castro's opponents frequently received as much as 30% of the vote, but the other 99% always went to the winner.

Here is the headline and lead of the story on the House-passed Iraq War resolution Friday in that well-known left-wing newspaper The Financial Times:

"HOUSE DENOUNCES BUSH'S IRAQ STRATEGY

"The US House of Representatives issued a clear rebuke to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war strategy, in the first concrete demonstration of opposition to the war by Capitol Hill since the US-led invasion almost four years ago."

Probably not exactly what Tony Snow had in mind.

As days passed, the (perceived) topic began to shift from "going on record in opposition to the surge" to "taking the first step toward restrictions on spending." The former was more attractive to Republicans than the latter.

Murtha and Pelosi contributed to this shift.

I suspect Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are in the business of strong-arming like Tom Delay used to. Bush timed his Wednesday news conference poorly--a number of Repuke-licans spoke out against the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Lieberman perpetual war.
I would think their price to pay is huge, and the arm-twisting endless. We prevailed nonetheless.
Rahm Emmanuel said it well--"first vote in four years that rejected the policy...gone from a rubber-stamp congress...to a new direction."
Yippee! And good riddance to the republican re-election prospects in '08, persisting in lock step support of a doomed ideological war. George doesn't feel this will affect his plans.

Did you see who didn't even vote? Child predator protector Hastert had better things to do.

Of course, this is not a doomed ideological war. It is a necessary war fought in almost the precise geographical center of the Middle East in order to keep a modicum of control over unpredictable tendencies.

To al Qaida and other extremist Islamist factions every day of this war is a very big deal. To most Americans it is only an annoying distraction--something expensive and seemingly incomprehensible, but to a lot of Americans not as immediately threatening in any sense as the threat, say, posed by global warming.

Which is a cock-eyed view of things, but the American perspective is skewed by all sorts of intellectual trash, including the old Far Left view that if America does it, it must be wrong.

Well, perhaps America is this time on the side of the angels. Perhaps Dubya is not the incarnation of all imaginable evils, but a pretty good representative of middle-brow American views on complex challenges. We middle-brow folks, you must allow, do not change our perspectives or our reasoning for flamboyent, emotional reasons. We generally don't revert to scatology to express our opinions or revile our intellectual opposition.

Believe it or not, Iran doesn't win this thing. Not at any level. Not in any degree. Bush stops them cold despite all the knives in his back, for the main reason that what Ahmadnadinejad is trying to do won't play in the modern world. Our president does not have to be a super-hero or even popular--all he has to do is stick up for the interests of the U.S.A. and for a civilized degree of modernity, and he wins.

And we win. Everyone wins. Tell me a scenario in which extremist Iran wins and THAT is good for future of humankind. Detail out how such a pro-Persian outcome unfolds, if you please. . .

Tell me a scenario in which extremist Iran wins and THAT is good for future of humankind. Detail out how such a pro-Persian outcome unfolds, if you please. . .
Posted by: mike cook

You pre-suppose that Iran is more extreme than Bush, Cheney, and the associated christofascists in their party.

I reject that premise.

Well, Nads, you win the America-hater of the week award. You think I and my co-religionists are worse than the worst enemy. Now what do you suppose that we think of you?

Well, Nads, you win the America-hater of the week award. You think I and my co-religionists are worse than the worst enemy. Now what do you suppose that we think of you?
Posted by: mike cook

why exactly would I care? you base your decisions upon a reflexive racism against nonwhites, and base polcy decisions upon what profits oilmen, not on what is good for america.

None of your your assertions, neither against Saddam nor Ahmadinejad, are based in verifiable fact. I'm saddened that those two have actually lied LESS in the past 6 years than has Bush. Your categorization of Muslims as "the worst enemy" is fanciful and, extrapolating from your willingness to attack all cultures brown, racist.

Furthermore, your co-religionists are simply continuing their fine tradition of empire and, if unchecked, will also repeat their tendancies to genocide. not much more impressive than any other religion, I'm afraid.

Why exactly is it that I should care what some random ignorant bigots think of me?

At the same time, I would like to encourage the Dems should set up an underground railroad for Republicans who want to escape the ideological slavery of their party.

Classic Disputo! Simply classic!

Memo to Mike Cook: it is, assure you, perfectly possible to be opposed to the Cornelius Fudge Administration without being on Voldemort's side -- for reasons that should be obvious.

mike, it's a tough competition, but you win: the stupidest set of comments of the day. i honestly don't understand how right-wing idiots learn how to type....

Nads sez:

You pre-suppose that Iran is more extreme than Bush, Cheney, and the associated christofascists in their party.

To which mike cook responses:

Well, Nads, you win the America-hater of the week award. You think I and my co-religionists are worse than the worst enemy. Now what do you suppose that we think of you?

Well, at least we now have mike cook on record admitting that he is a Christofascist. I would have bet good money that he would have insisted that he is a non-fascist Christian.

Even more peculiar is that he contends that Iran is the worst enemy. Worse than OBL and NorK?

The worst enemies for wingnuts continue to be their own delusions.

Of course, this is not a doomed ideological war. It is a necessary war fought in almost the precise geographical center of the Middle East in order to keep a modicum of control over unpredictable tendencies.

Duckworth's husband is being deployed to Iraq for your necessary war. Surely a hawk such as yourself for such a necessary war is posting this while resting up for the next IED sweep in Baghdad....

Now I am not so sure but Iran ordered and paid for that attack in order to inflame Shia opinion to the enhancement of those militias Iran wished to favor.

What do you think of people who are sure Bush was behind 9/11?

That's about the level you're at right now.

Oh well, so only 17 Republicans voted for this. boo hoo. It's better that fewer of them vote for this. That just makes a vote that much harder to explain for the other 45 Republicans living in anti-war districts.

mike cook: You think I and my co-religionists are worse than the worst enemy.

not me...

if it makes you feel any better...

i think you are both the same...

Maybe like the Deaniacs in your own party they came to their senses at the last minute.

Get a lesson in deductive thinking from Mr. Cook, folks. First, start with a wild guess:

the Golden Mosque at Samarra... I am not so sure but Iran ordered and paid for that attack

Continue by sharing your inner-most thoughts:

I am also thinking that Iran has been behind most of the recent killings of Americans

Add speculation about why Israel may be talking to Syria (and not to Iran):

Maybe this is why Israel is reportedly in secret negotiations with Syria...

And now, finally, you have reached your iron-clad conclusion:

Soooo, Iran is the major problem.

Proceed to bomb Iran. It's a no-brainer. Really.

Mike Cook,

Double your Metformin in the evenings. Your sugar level appears to be very much out of whack during the late hours.

I suspect the 17 white flag Republicans will face primary challengers next year, many from military vets who don't like fifth columns. It is reasonable for Democrats who oppose the war to move to cut off funding. The fact that they occupy themselves with non-binding resolutions suggests to me a nagging fear that, if Iraq turns out to stabilize, they will be at the end of a branch and sawing furiously on the wrong side. Have the courage of your convictions !

The Republican Party is having a Whig moment right now. The Whigs could not make up their minds about slavery. The 17 loser caucus members are in a similar fix. They have to decide. There are also a large number of Democrats in red districts. The 2006 election was about a lot of things besides the Iraq situation. It will be an interesting two years.

A Whig moment?

More like Ear Whig problems and a whole lot of Know Nothingism.

Mike K, i'll tell you what: if you plan to denounce every right-wing nutcase who uses a vote to defund the war as an asswipe, and if you are prepared to lead a movement that says, when the asswipes start in on the smear jobs, that they are dishonest scum who don't belong in american political debate, i'm willing to say to the dems "go ahead, vote to cut off funding and end the war even if bush will veto it and it won't make any difference."

otherwise, stfu about crap like "courage of convictions." what a ridiculous argument.

Howard, for the life of me, I can't figure out what you are trying to say. I said that the Republicans who voted with the Democrats will face primary challenges. I also said that Democrats are not willing to try to defund the troops because they are afraid that, even now, we might still win.

It is all posturing. That's all.

Democrats are not willing to try to defund the troops because they are afraid that, even now, we might still win.

If that's what they were "afraid" of then they wouldn't be pushing these non-binding resolutions either -- since, politically, they would be just as damaging.

I think it's clear that for now they don't want to be seen as forcing the president's hand -- just expressing their disapproval.

JS, they are certain that we will lose but are hedging bets. Some of them, like Murtha, don't even know the situation on the ground. He thinks the troops are living in the Green Zone, for example. They are hoping to have it both ways while satisfying their anti-war constituents. Even the Washington Post doesn't want them to try to stop the troops. Just posture.

H.R.808
Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Introduced in House)

Brian,

I doubt your still around to dispute this, but you're statement that they are not voting their conscience is patently ridiculous. As I said before 70% of the country opposes the surge. 95%Democrats oppose the surge. The simple fact is that this war going to end. Republicans are on the wrong side of it and Democrats are on the right side. Come to our side. Let's work to end the war and they together we can work to address the true threats to this nation.

I think it's doubtful that a resolution with teeth (i.e. defunding operations) would pass. We'll see if it even comes to a vote.

Mike K, i will spell it out nice and slow: if the democrats vote for a defunding of the war by date certain, two things will happen: a.) right-wing scum will fill the airwaves with denunciations of how much the democrats hate the troops; b.) bush will exercise his veto.

so i'm saying to you that anyone who insists that the dems undertake, thanks to "b," a pointless exercise, should be prepared to denounce all the right-wing asswipes who are just waiting to make such claims.

and if they aren't, they should stfu.

so you tell me: are you ready to accept that defunding the war is not undercutting the troops, and are you prepared to denounce any right-winger who says otherwise? if not, then i'm not interested in hearing your claims about "posturing" and "courage of convictions."

So does Brian not remember all those votes in the 109th congress in which there were no dissenting votes on the republican side? so what kind of boot licking syncophants does that make the repubs look like?

Howard, it doesn't make much sense to argue a political position by saying "I'll ONLY do what I think is right if YOU refuse to oppose it".

Mike K has the politics right: Republicans have substantial polling data that (following the rule of 4) shows that while a majority is 'sorta' against the war, and a substantial minority is "strongly" against the war, injecting the "this is meaningless" idea moves a majority into "sorta" being against what Congress is doing.

Just thought a clue might help.

Was the vote just a really, really bad idea?

To the above commenters who deigned leave a response to li'l ol' me:

Your bromides are tired, your ad hominem weak. If you were aiming for clever you missed... badly.

mike k: The 17 loser caucus members are in a similar fix.

54% of Americans would vote to cut off funding for escalation if they were in Congress. - Fox News 2/16/07

Only 28% give the President good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Iraq. - Rasmussen 2/2/07

Just 33% believe the President’s call for a temporary troop “surge� will succeed. - Rasmussen 2/2/07

58% say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over. - Newsweek 1/27/07

america knows who the loser is...

we told you so..

now look...

like Murtha, don't even know the situation on the ground… Mike K at 2:38 PM

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy