The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Irar War Vote

posted by David Corn on 05/25/2007 @ 11:43am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (365)

Subscribe Now

The congressional Democratic leaders' big problem: they can't count.

Given the choice of funding the unpopular Iraq war or being accused by George W. Bush of succumbing to a defeatism that endangers America's security, a majority of senators and representatives clearly prefers Option One. This group is composed mostly of Republicans. But a slice of Democrats are within its ranks. Such a reality couldn't be hurdled by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate during the just-ended face-off over an Iraq war funding bill. The Democrats tried at first to have it both ways and ended up with nothing--except a flood of resentment from their core supporters. Amid the debris, there's a lesson for them.

Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrats thought they could cleverly force Bush to end (or, at least, begin ending) the war. They oppose the war, but their plan was to vote for Iraq war funds and attach a variety of conditions, including benchmarks and a withdrawal schedule, to the funding measure. Such a move would have both continued the war and established a glide path for its end (that is, the end of active US combat participation in the conflict). A few Democrats who wanted to just say no to the war bolted, but Pelosi managed to craft a Rube Goldberg measure that won the barest party-line majority possible. (There was doubt whether the legislation would do much in concrete terms, for it contained escape clauses Bush could exploit.) In the Senate, Reid, with his fellow Democrats aboard, passed a less complicated bill that called for beginning a withdrawal in several months. Next, the president vetoed the blended bill that subsequently emerged.

That was no surprise. For the Democrats, the question was, what to do next? Antiwar advocates, such as the members of MoveOn, demanded the Dems hang tough. Former Senator John Edwards, a presidential candidate, called for Pelosi and Reid to keep passing the same bill in defiance of Bush's veto, as Edwards sought to pressure two rivals, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The media portrayed the episode as a showdown between congressional Democrats and Bush. The key issue: who would blink first?

The answer came on Thursday night when the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate essentially turned tail and allowed votes on a $120 billion war funding measure containing weak benchmarks and little in the way of consequences should the Iraqi government fall short. GOPers provided most of the support for the legislation, but in the House 86 Democrats voted for it (including such leaders as Representatives Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, James Clyburn and John Murtha). In the Senate, 37 of 50 Democrats went along. Toward the end of the vote in the Senate, Obama voted nay; then Hillary Clinton followed suit.

The war continues. No checks, no balances.

Grassroots and antiwar Democrats who expected their party's win last November to lead to the war's end are enraged. As they see it--and accurately so--a Democratic-controlled Congress has failed to halt or slow Bush's war in Iraq, even though public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans favor establishing a withdrawal timetable. And, worse, many Democrats have now voted to give the war, with the ongoing escalation, another chance. The Democratic Party leaders stand alienated from their base--while congressional Republicans, though out of step with popular sentiment, are in sync with their core supporters.

Was such an unhappy (for the Democrats) outcome inevitable? Probably. The Democrats do not have the votes to stop the war, even in their own caucus--unless they are audaciously willing to defy majority rule (say, by preventing war funding legislation from reaching the floor). Most House Democrats do favor withdrawing from Iraq. Days ago, 169 House Democrats (and two Republicans) voted for such a measure. And 28 Democratic senators voted for a similar bill. Yet a significant minority of Democrats are aligned with almost all the Republicans in opposition to a legislatively-mandated pullback. Some of these Democrats may believe in the war; many probably fear being blamed for the ugly consequences that could ensue in Iraq following a removal of US troops. In any event, the Democrats were mathematically destined to disappoint those hoping they would suffocate Bush's war in Iraq.

The denouement, though, did not have to be so dismal for the Democrats. If the Democrats had at the start not attempted to outfox an uncompromising commander in chief, they could have reaped the rewards of moral (or political) clarity. Had Pelosi offered a bill forcing a withdrawal of US forces within a year, she would have lost the vote on that measure. But she would have been in a position to declare, "Most of the Democratic Party want to end this war, but because some of our members (and practically all of the Republicans) disagree, we cannot pass legislation to achieve this...yet." A clear picture would have been painted: the war belongs to Bush and the Republicans.

After that, Pelosi could have permitted the Republicans to bring forward an appropriations bill for the war. The Democrats could have offered various benchmarks, conditions, timetables, and deadlines via amendments. Most would have failed, a few (but no withdrawal deadlines) might have passed. Again, there would be clarity. The narrative would have been that the Democrats first tried to stop the war and then attempted to place limits on the war. If they failed, they failed. Sure, there still would have been anger from the base at those Democrats who bucked the Democratic gameplan. But the party's grassroots and netroots--and the rest of the public--would have seen that the Democratic leadership had endeavored to change course in Iraq.

The House Democratic leaders can now contend that they did try to force a change on Bush and point to the 140 Dems who voted against the war funding bill. But this claim cannot overcome the appearance of Democratic strategizing gone awry. The Democrats created too much confusing context for their failure. Bush had a simple position: I want my war the way I want it, and if the Democrats don't give it to me, they'll be harming the troops and bear responsibility for whatever ill befalls America from the evildoers. The Democrats presented a series of hard-to-follow and hard-to-explain gyrations. They were rolled.

At the end of the day, Bush and the GOP--who are on the wrong side of public opinion on the war--came out political winners. And the Democrats looked divided, confused, and weak. Which brings me back to the first point. In politics, you can sometimes turn a liability (not enough votes) into an asset, if you play for a clean loss that sends the right message. That's not what happened on this round.

The match is not over. The war slogs on, and Congress will face another vote on war funds in the fall. Lawmakers of both parties are already saying that September will be the make-or-break month, meaning that if there are no obvious signs of progress by summer's end, even Republicans may start to proclaim enough's enough. "This is not the end of the debate," Pelosi asserted before voting against the war funding measure. She's right about that.

Pelosi and Reid will get another shot at Bush's war soon. Democrats should wonder what their leaders learned from this defeat.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (365)

they may have learned that the total surrender isn't as painful as they might have imagined and the next time is lots easier.

Posted by LabWitch at 05/25/2007 @ 11:50am
David,

Again, you have the best perspectives.....even before last night's vote!

The Dem pols "rolled" themselves, that's for sure and oddly, so many of us non-Loonies, saw this almost as clearly as you did.

From the hard right, Patrick Buchannon has a piece that also sums up the post-mortem well. The Far Left wingers were, in PB's words, "thrown under the bus".

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 12:07pm
"Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 12:07pm
Posted by HAPPY

Pat Buchanan? You read what Pat Buchanan writes? And you call yourself a "non-Looney"?

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 12:16pm
How many more Americans and Iraqis are going to die until this stupid little war is brought to an end?

Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

~Barbara Bush - Georges' Mom

Posted by COProgressive at 05/25/2007 @ 12:19pm
MT & Happy,

You do both know that Pat was one of the first in the popular punitocrity to be AGAINST the Iraq debacle right?

Posted by freedomplease at 05/25/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE

Well, at least he got one thing right.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 12:21pm
Sorry, I forgot again...

itmfa

"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."

~Charles Evans Hughes

itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 05/25/2007 @ 12:25pm
Sorry, I forgot again...

itmfa

"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."

~Charles Evans Hughes

itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 05/25/2007 @ 12:27pm
You do both know that Pat was one of the first in the popular punitocrity to be AGAINST the Iraq debacle right?

Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 05/25/2007 @ 12:20pm

Yes! A traditional non-interventionist Republican......I can easily sympathize w/his views. As I've said before, I'm no NeoCon but I am bound to supporting our CIC UNLESS I'm convinced there was definitve `malice'.

BTW, I'm w/Bush in leaving Iraq IF the Iraqis asked us to leave--by their Shiite-overwhelmed parliament AND their Executive branch.

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 12:34pm
The Democrats know that what their leaders believe is that their base doesn't count; only their corporate supporters who are very interested in keeping this occupation going, thank you. Only the appearance of rejecting the war is important to the Congressional Democrats. The Congressional Democrats have no courage because they have no convictions, only a love of power and how to retain it.

Posted by alanlak at 05/25/2007 @ 12:42pm
The House voting yesterday was structured so all the Doves could act honorably, while the Hawks won anyway. The "compromise" was that the (mostly Republican) anti- "pork" types were forced to cast merely symbolic votes, too, against the minimum wage increase and the domestic spending. And the base gets to do its purity checklists -- "Maxine Waters against the Rules vote, Yay!; Kennedy against the war funding, Yay!" (Or, for Republicans: "Enzi against pork, yay!"), while the war goes on. I'm not yet be persuaded that a different series of honorable votes would change the "narrative" (does that mean, "What the MSM will report"? Or what Dems tell their constituents? ). But all kinds of events could change the math.

Posted by RLawrence at 05/25/2007 @ 12:49pm
Ok so Corn is saying that in September the dems will have this experience and put forward a clear(er) cut bill for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq that will be defeated, but it will play better politically for the dems; but the war will go on? Perhaps.

But if we really want out of the war, we need to clean our house first and that means impeachment of Frito first, then cHeney and then hsuB, and in rapid succession. The repubs still have a delussional base when it comes to fearing ME foriegners and will easily side with greed and cowardice. But repubs also respond to corruption. It's ok to be greedy and kill, as long as you follow the law or at least don't get caught. Consider all the repubs that have been convicted, resigned or un-reelected, per one form of corruption or another. It's a long long list. This means cleaning up the DoJ first, they've been caught-- out goes Frito. cHeney's hands are dirtier than most and easier to dispose of. As for hsuB, by that point, post cHeney out, if hsuB won't resign and his job approval poll is in the teens, the congress will easily impeach him if he still wants to veto per stupid congressional repubs won't override it per repub base still loves other people's blood spewing about but not in their backyard please.

So then you're thinking well won't hsuB just nominate a vice that wants to continue the Iraq war too? Won't get confirmed. Plus it's hsuB's war and the sooner a new pres gets our troops out the more it'll continue stick to hsuB. hsuB will own the disaster that is his place in history.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 12:50pm
"BTW, I'm w/Bush in leaving Iraq IF the Iraqis asked us to leave--by their Shiite-overwhelmed parliament AND their Executive branch."---Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 12:34pm

What about the Sunni minority? Are they not "Iraqis"?

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 1:01pm
"At the end of the day, Bush and the GOP--who are on the wrong side of public opinion on the war--came out political winners. And the Democrats looked divided, confused, and weak. Which brings me back to the first point. In politics, you can sometimes turn a liability (not enough votes) into an asset, if you play for a clean loss that sends the right message."

Mr. Corn, why do you sound so shocked?!! Those crazy dems are divided, confused and weak.

Posted by ACook at 05/25/2007 @ 1:06pm
Democratic democracy means having and utilizing 'individual' rights, i.e. differring opinions and strategies, not being in a republicanistic lock step new con synchronized swimming in a pool of cash atop our troops blood.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 1:16pm
Perhaps moving together, united, for a great wrong, is a greater weakness.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm
What about the Sunni minority? Are they not "Iraqis"?

Posted by MASK 05/25/2007 @ 1:01pm

I'll tell you, MASK......I'm most disappointed w/the Sunnis!

Sure, they are the ones deposed from power in `03 and fought the Coalition early on! I don't begrudge them for, say, the first couple of years of fighting. But once past our 2004 Election, they should have known (as I had posted at Corn.com), that the Coalition is there as much as to protect their minority interests as it was to fight AQ (which WAS becoming the bigger, certainly more trouble-making party)!

The Sunnis HAD WASTED their best chance (`04-`05) to come to terms w/destiny, with our help! Still, to a lesser degree, they still have some chances.....but their bargaining positions are much weaker today since our patience is steadily eroding. They need to extend extraordinay help to us today, as some (perhaps many) sheiks seem to be doing in banding together to cut AQ down in size....to help steady our support while we see if the Shiites have any redeeming values to work toward democracy for ALL Iraqi citizens. I don't know that it will happen but we must try; unless, as Bush/I said, if Iraqi democracy asks us to leave, we ought to leave.

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm

Why would the Shiite Government ask us to leave....if we're helping them survive (i.e. propping them up) and taking hits FOR THEM from the Sunnis and Bush is using a velvet glove (if that) to press them to take charge themselves?

Remember how the Right (and us libertarians) discuss how welfare makes the poor dependent on Government....what's the difference with the al-Maliki Government in Baghdad? And Bush is pushing for continued "welfare" and no "work requirement" like a liberal would on a social program. (that analogy will cause some trouble by those who agree with me on Iraq...but thought it might stir a thought in HAPPY).

BTW, I thought the "qualifier" for us getting out of Iraq was "finishing the job" and "victory"...not the Iraqi Government asking us to leave?

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 1:30pm
But what if the Iraqi government isn't a democracy? What if like here a majority of the people want out of Iraq but the politicians are taking there orders from another and not the people? Perhaps there's a reason for hsuB to confidently make a statement that he knew wouldn't happen-- especially whens he states so vehemently how important it is to be there as all your children will suffer if we leave.

Yep hsuB is now threatening our kids with aq, while our troops are being killed in a civil war, but was awol when it counted... he's one to talk. Damn repubs.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 1:36pm
Come on. This whole thing has been a damned joke from the beginning.

The problem is that the president has a veto power, and is necessarily a party to the negotiation over what's in a bill. Absent a two thirds majority, the whole idea of passing a law that forces the president to act against his political interests is ridiculous.

So they got it over with. So what, nothing different was going to happen. The proof of Bush's folly won't come until September. He set his own benchmark - pacifying Baghdad - and generals and pundits galore have said next fall is when we'll know if it's working.

Stiff him then, when Republicans will be idiots if they don't go along with it.

By then, there will be another several hundred more families who want to know why their kids are dead. It's a hellish calculus, but that's the only thing that will bring the (mostly Republican) votes around.

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/25/2007 @ 1:52pm
David,

Easy to monday morning quarterback the Dem leadership, but I have to disagree....They (The Dem Leadership) didn't defeat themselves, they were defeated by Dubya because they doubted his sincerity....He told them he would veto the bill, and he did...No surprises here, so why is anyone acting surprised? That Dubya is a man of his word has been reinforced, even as Pelosi and Reid end up with egg on their faces......

Just call him "Stonewall" Bush, as in " Stonewall" Jackson........ Standing like a stonewall against the defeatist, retreatist congress, Dem and Repub alike.............

Bush will now assume the role of opposition, and his approval ratings will increase, even as Pelosi's and Reid's go down.....Remember, you read it here first...(heh,heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by ALANLAK 05/25/2007 @ 12:42pm

Is is a fact that war is not good for business.

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm

The Sunnis HAD WASTED their best chance (`04-`05) to come to terms w/destiny, with our help!

Oh, the irony - from someone that would have agreed with Ronald Reagan when he talked about the scary words of "we're from government and we are here to help."

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

Yes. If we lived in a dream world rather than the real one.

I am going to continue to ask any of you people that talk about "retreat" or "surrender" to explain to me what "victory" looks like.

Don't just talk about it - define it. I want to know who the enemy is, when you will know when victory has been achieved and how this is being accomplished by the troops in Iraq. There is a reason no one gets into the details - because your argument doesn't work when you have to be specific.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 1:59pm
ust call him "Stonewall" Bush, as in " Stonewall" Jackson........ Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

Interesting that you should rightly equate Bush with another traitor to his country - or do you actually think that Stonewall Jackson was a patriot?

Posted by jmusolino at 05/25/2007 @ 2:16pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

Less than JMUSO....I'll ask this...

Do you remember how Stonewall Jackson was killed?

hehe

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 1:59pm

SRJ, I'll give you their answer...and why it's impossible to achieve.

One of them is...."when Iraq is stable and secure". Bush a few weeks ago, said there would be a "level of violence the Iraqi people could live with"....he didn't explain if that was "Detroit in 1975" or "Belfast in 1975" or "Rwanda in 1994" or what. But unless the Shiia kill off every Sunni of fighting age or figure out how to deal with them politically....ain't happening in the next 20 months.

"When the Iraqis can secure themselves...they stand up, we sit down" is the other. That means a SIDE of the Iraqis has substantial advantage in the civil war. I suppose the way the Germans and Italians were able to sit down, when Francisco Franco and the Nationalists were able to stand up.

Problem is we have a RICH ally of the Sunni Iraqis...called Saudi Arabia that isn't going to let them go down without a fight, even it means going against the interests of their old friend George.

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 2:27pm
DAVEBARLETT 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

I thought you were smart, Dave. You don't really buy into that "Bush sticks to his guns" crap do you?

Fact: Bush has so little cognitive ability, he has no choice but to stick to a decision once he's "made" it. It's the only thing that allows partisans like you to pretend that he knew what he was doing in the first place.

He's "decided" to cut taxes, send in the Marines wherever possible, kowtow to evangelicals, expand police powers, and talk tough about any country that doesn't act like us. Those aren't decisions, they're just boilerplate conservative campaign positions.

If he were resolute, he would have told al-Maliki to go fuck himself by now.

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/25/2007 @ 2:42pm
Looks like the congress did what the polls wanted-- funding with benchmarks.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

_____________Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

ALL adults________23_______72________5

___Republicans____54______40________6

___Democrats______4______93________3

___Independents___19______77________4

"Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"

Date___________Republican__Democratic___Both___Neither___Unsure

5/18-23/07__________33________51_________2______4______10

3/06_______________32________45_________1_______9______13

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

________Right Thing__Stayed Out__Unsure

5/18-23/07______35______61_______4

4/9-12/07_______44______51_______5

"How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?"

________Very Well__Somewhat Well__Somewhat Badly__Very Badly__Unsure

5/18-23/07_____2________21_____________29____________47________1

4/9-12/07______2________29_____________30____________36________3

"As you may know, the U.S. is sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?"

_____________Better__Worse____No Impact___Unsure

5/18-23/07______20_____26________50__________4

4/9-12/07_______25_____26________43__________6

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

_____________Should__Should Not__Unsure

5/18-23/07_____63_______34_________3

4/20-24/07_____64_______32_________4

4/9-12/07______57_______38_________5

"Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. Congress should allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government are meeting those goals. OR, Congress should allow all funding for the war without any benchmark conditions."

___________Block All__Fund With Benchmarks__Allow All__Unsure

5/18-23/07______13___________69______________15________3

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If the United States fails in its efforts to establish a stable Iraq, who do you think will be most to blame: President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress, or reporters and the media?" Options rotated

President Bush_____________________37

Reporters and the media__________8

Democrats in Congress_________7

Donald Rumsfeld______________5

Republicans in Congress____________1

The Iraqis_____________________5

Combination________________28

Unsure_____________________9

The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Date________Excellent/Pretty Good______Only Fair/Poor

4/20-23/07_________22__________________74

"How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Date________Excellent/Pretty Good______Only Fair/Poor

4/20-23/07__________35__________________58

And hsuB is sliding just above 30% approval-- while cHeney is at 13%, ouch!

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 2:53pm
Oh, the irony - from someone that would have agreed with Ronald Reagan when he talked about the scary words of "we're from government and we are here to help."

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

try: "we're from private industry and we are here to help."

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person

you live in a dream world. the Sunni have held hundreds of thousands of american troops at bay, while engaged in a civil war against the Shia. it is they who are winning, not the US and not the puppet gov't..

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 3:00pm
"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."

~Charles Evans Hughes

this has happened, in that quaint little town in Bavaria, Nürnberg.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 3:02pm
the best we can hope for, alas, is exile in Crawfürd

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/25/2007 @ 3:08pm
Why would the Shiite Government ask us to leave....

....welfare makes the poor dependent on Government....what's the difference with the al-Maliki Government in Baghdad?...

...the "qualifier" for us getting out of Iraq was "finishing the job" and "victory"...not the Iraqi Government asking us to leave?

Posted by MASK 05/25/2007 @ 1:30pm

Part of the Shiite Gov't (hint: like our Congress) would ask us to leave most anyday of the week! Malik may eventually do the same! Why? Not a stretch to imagine they can then screw/slaughter the Sunnis (payback...uh, like the Dems since Nov. `04?) to their hearts' delight and `officially' keep all oil resources outside of Kurds areas! The Sauds won't enter Iraq militarily since Iran will be `invited in' to kick their ass. If Arabia enters anyway, we'll be back at it again....this time, keeping oil flowing maybe a huge factor!

Putting Maliki's `dependency' on par w/welfare is disingenuous! Have Maliki and our own `trial and error approach' had multiple presidential terms and both party's tinkerings for a few decades? You will argue, "Yeh, but people are dying, blah, blah, blah...", but the welfare-of-old ruined how many lives? Prevented how many black families from forming? Led to how many ghetto gangs and killings? Destroyed how many dreams? Costed the country how many trillions?

Bush's talking points on the War really aren't much different from "No child Left Behind" or some Libs' "Eliminate poverty in our times"....Reality, as you and certainly I know, is never as laid out by our elected (or SCOTUS picked) ones. In fact, last night's votes will be a classic--30%-ters winning 85% of Senate votes and 67% of House votes!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 3:17pm
Oh, the irony - from someone that would have agreed with Ronald Reagan when he talked about the scary words of "we're from government and we are here to help."

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

?????????

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 3:21pm
Posted by MASK 05/25/2007 @ 2:27pm

I think it is more complex than that. Some people are talking about "victory" in terms of establishing a democratic Iraq state. Those people have to explain how the military is going to accomplish that.

It seems some other people talking about "victory" aren't talking about Iraq at all. They seem to be talking about fundamentalist Islam - in Israel, Iran and elsewhere. They need to talk about why Iraq was the focal point for that endeavor.

Others may be talking about terrorism, others about U.S. dominance over natural resources. Still others might mean something else.

There are major fault lines in the thinking here and all we need to do is stop pretending we know what these people are talking about when they say "victory" and "surrender". We simply don't know.

I may even agree with some vision of victory. The problem here is that there are many visions masquerading as one.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 3:24pm
I am going to continue to ask any of you people that talk about "retreat" or "surrender" to explain to me what "victory" looks like.

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 1:59pm

Since none of the Anti-War-ers want to actually admit to the "retreat" or "surrender" position; instead, dress their `want' in `will of the people' jargon........one simple answer I have for "victory" is: the opposite of whatever it is that you guys want! Kinda muddy, ain't it?!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 3:29pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:21pm

I don't know the exact source, but it is said that Ronald Reagan once said something along the lines of "The scariest words ever said, we are from the government and we are here to help." It seemed appropriate to your comment about the U.S. government helping the Iraqis - a bit ironic because you probably would support this idea, so long as it was in the U.S.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 3:33pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:29pm

I will happily admit to a retreat position. Surrender, of course, is absurd unless you are referring to the temporary insanity to which we have surrendered our international efforts during the last six years.

There! I say we retreat completely out of Iraq. That's my plan and I will call it a defeat without reservation. I would have called it a defeat in March 2003.

Please do now share your plan for victory.

What's you

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/25/2007 @ 3:35pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:29pm

The sad thing is Happy, I think this is exactly what is going on. Apparently any position I take is "surrender". It's a verion of heads I win, tails you lose. I'm simply calling you on it.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 3:36pm
Sorry for the "What's you" nonsense.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/25/2007 @ 3:36pm
Happy should talk to crying Boneher.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 3:37pm
surrender.

when we leave Iraq, it will no be surrender. we will not break our sword and sign a surrender document.our soldiers won't be prisoners of war, we will not turn over our materiel to the victors, who would they be again? when 70 % of polled citizens believe the war is a mistake, you can be sure that it is already lost.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 3:37pm
Oops wrong thread

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 3:38pm
Look repub new cons don't use language to communicate ideas via consensis terminology like we learn in school, they use words more to confuse the issue than to clarify or enlighten. New con repubs manipulate language in order to mask the truth, to hide what they mean rather than to explain and connect ideas in a rational honest way. It's as if they are aliens from another planet altogether, they don't know how to use the language correctly but they also don't want to explain too much so that we don't find out what they really are and what they're really up to. Sneaky assholes those aliens.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 3:50pm
"Pelosi and Reid will get another shot at Bush's war soon. Democrats should wonder what their leaders learned from this defeat."

Is this a serious comment? They won't know anything then that they don't know now- that the challenge is to pass legislation that enables continuation of the occupation of Iraq while projecting an image of opposing it.

Some people here need to start facing reality. The Democratic Party elite doesn't want to withdraw from Iraq. Most people who vote Democratic have for a long time wanted out of this occupation that does not serve our national interests. But they're just there to vote not to make decisions. The corporate-backed elite who control the Democratic Party are under tremendous pressure from the Israel lobby to maintain a US military footprint in the Middle East. Withdrawal fron Iraq doesn't fit that shoe.

There is one thing that these Democrats fear more than death itself and that is to be labeled something other than "good for Israel" by the Israel lobby.

The US will withdraw from Iraq when it's Republican/Democratic political class has finally despaired of the Israeli policy of maintaining a ramped-up US military dominance of the Middle East at an affordable political cost and not before. It isn't going to happen until both the Republican and Democratic enablers of that policy are at risk of being thrown out on the street.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm
SR & TJ,

I don't deny "victory" has gotten quite complictated...even I had my doubts when Bush went "Mission Accomplished" without qualifying it better, or maybe he did but in those euphoric moments of America's having done good, few picked it up (I didn't)!

Just so you know my past positions: Withdrawl after Saddam was caught AND after the first set of elections. I also did support removing Saddam and I honored the WMD assumption but slighted the AQ-Iraq connection (which to me, not much different than JR having some drinks w/JM though they are not on the same side). Despite my own positions, we where we are, still in Iraq!

Now, "victory" today has to include an overwhelming majority of Iraqis rejecting AQ! Unlike Pakistan or Afghanistan, Iraq has the resources to aid AQ's cause enormously! This, I think, is achievable given that Iraq is not dominated (today) by Sunnis! This is in line w/Bush's claim that Iraq is the main front in the GWOT.

"Victory" can (in my estimation) include a stable but Iran-dominated Iraq. My view is that Iran, after almost 3 decades of clerical rule, is within the realm of possibly having had its fill. Its population is young and not poorly educated. Its own oil industry is falling apart and will need foreign cooperations! IF we can get past its nuclear lunacy, I'm not bothered by Iran's looking after its own western border neighbor.

I don't doubt many of you have great intentions but my nature has always been to look long-term.....small example: the first property I bought, at age 26, was a rental house....before I bought a house just for my own use.

The picture is fuzzy because, no one has a crystal ball and for sure, we are not fighting our father's (or grandfather's) enemies!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm
The occupation of Iraq is doomed.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 3:57pm
Now, "victory" today has to include an overwhelming majority of Iraqis rejecting AQ!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

Like before we invaded Iraq? Pure genius!

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:17pm

Very interesting admissions on your part about the Shiia Government in Baghdad we are propping up...

"Not a stretch to imagine they can then screw/slaughter the Sunnis ...to their hearts' delight and `officially' keep all oil resources outside of Kurds areas"

and "You will argue, "Yeh, but people are dying, blah, blah, blah..."

So essentially you're admitting the strong possibility that American troops are dying to prop up a government that will engage in sectarian "cleansing" and cutting off part of their own nationals' access to the nation's wealth....and that's "okay" with you?

So why did we invade Iraq again?

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 4:02pm
Report: Iraq Problems Were Anticipated

KATHERINE SHRADER | AP | May 25, 2007 01:45 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- U.S. intelligence analysts predicted, in two papers widely circulated before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape the post-Saddam era. The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, turbulent challenge.

Democrats said the documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.

"Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings _ and worse, to plan for them _ has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price," said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

He said the committee's work on the Iraq intelligence "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

Publication of the 229-page document was approved by a vote of 10-5, with two Republicans _ Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska _ joining with Democrats in the prevailing position.

Asked about the report at his Thursday news conference, President Bush stood by his decision to topple the Iraqi regime. He said he firmly believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

"Going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen," he said. "Obviously, as I made a decision ... I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision."

{WHAT ARE THE FUCKING REWARDS AGAIN?}

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida," wrote four Democratic senators _ Rockefeller, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, four Republican senators _ Bond, John Warner of Virginia, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Richard Burr of North Carolina _ wrote that the report exaggerates the importance of the pre-invasion assessments. They said the reports weren't based on intelligence information, but instead were speculation from experts in and out of government. "They were no more authoritative than the many other educated opinions that were available in the same timeframe," the Republicans wrote.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 4:05pm
The picture is fuzzy because, no one has a crystal ball and for sure, we are not fighting our father's (or grandfather's) enemies!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

The enemies we have are the enemies we went to great lengths and expense to create.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 4:08pm
They said the reports weren't based on intelligence information, but instead were speculation from experts in and out of government. "They were no more authoritative than the many other educated opinions that were available in the same timeframe," the Republicans wrote.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/25/2007 @ 4:05pm

As opposed to the more-desirable-to-Republicans opinions of chest-thumping mental retards, I suppose.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 4:10pm
So essentially you're admitting the strong possibility that American troops are dying to prop up a government that will engage in sectarian "cleansing" and cutting off part of their own nationals' access to the nation's wealth....and that's "okay" with you?

they are doing this now, and have been for some time.that is why it's a civil war over there.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 4:11pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 3:24pm

Well, you're right. Even Bush hasn't had a consistant definition of "victory". It USED to be "safe and stable democratic Iraq"....then it was "stable Iraq"....now it's "a level of violence the Iraqi people can live with" (whatever the hell THAT is supposed to be...again...Detroit-1970s or BELFAST-1970s?)

It also used to be "an Iraqi security force that can take over for us"....well, we were told THREE YEARS AGO that "20 brigades would be ready by 2005"...then were told a few months back "2 brigades were ready"....now told "200,000 Iraqi security forces are ready".

The old "spreading democracy in the Middle East" b.s. has fallen apart as well as other Mid-East people see Iraq and say "Hey, Ahmadinejad/Assad/Mahmoud Abbas may be 'bad guys', but atleast we can go to the markets without fear of being blown to hell"

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 4:11pm
I don't doubt many of you have great intentions but my nature has always been to look long-term.....small example: the first property I bought, at age 26, was a rental house....before I bought a house just for my own use.

The picture is fuzzy because, no one has a crystal ball and for sure, we are not fighting our father's (or grandfather's) enemies!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

In other words, I'm stupid and the dumb shit who supported the invasion of Iraq was smart? OK. I get it . . . I think.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/25/2007 @ 4:05pm

"Those once-classified papers drew from expertise within a number spy agencies and were distributed to scores of White House, national security, diplomatic and congressional officials."

So who in Congress knew this?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm
Just so you know my past positions: Withdrawl after Saddam was caught AND after the first set of elections. I also did support removing Saddam and I honored the WMD assumption but slighted the AQ-Iraq connection (which to me, not much different than JR having some drinks w/JM though they are not on the same side). Despite my own positions, we where we are, still in Iraq!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

When did you take up this expensive hobby of rearranging other countries? Before you got so smart that you bought a piece of real estate or after?

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 4:14pm
As opposed to the more-desirable-to-Republicans opinions of chest-thumping mental retards, I suppose.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 4:10pm

Don't forget the manipulative Pollyannas looking for primo jobs in the World Bank to give to their old ladies, once the predictable bloodbath is undeniably out of hand.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/25/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/25/2007 @ 4:05pm

"Those once-classified papers drew from expertise within a number spy agencies and were distributed to scores of White House, national security, diplomatic and congressional officials."

So who in Congress knew this?

Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

There's a new book out which claims H.R. Clinton didn't even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate before she voted for the invasion of Iraq: http://tinyurl.com/ynq4ok

If it's true, ask yourself why she didn't bother.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 4:20pm
Q. Does anyone know the difference between the Democrats that voted to fund Bush's war without end and a 69 year-old hooker that is so used up that the only tricks she can get paid for are $20 blow jobs in a dark alley?

A. Neither do I. If anyone does know the difference, please respond.

P.S. My apologies to all the"working women" of the world. My intent was not to slander or malign you, but to prove a point.

Posted by Greg Bacon at 05/25/2007 @ 4:43pm
Posted by GREG BACON 05/25/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

misogynist. would you say this to your 69 year old mom?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 4:50pm
...the strong possibility that American troops are dying to prop ....and that's "okay" with you?

So why did we invade Iraq again?

Posted by MASK 05/25/2007 @ 4:02pm

For that "possibility", Yes! The alternatives could be a whole lot worse.....and you likely know that....worse than you or I could imagine! Reality, it's a bitch! e.g.: You forsaw the swamping your 70% got last night?

Why invaded Iraq? old stuff....We are where we are!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 4:51pm
...I'm stupid and the dumb shit . . . I think.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

IF you say you are, I accept! BTW, are you worthy of staying visible on my board?

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 4:51pm

Okay, HAPP, I'll take the "real politik" answer....stop me or correct me if I am mis-characterizing your view....

"We should stay and stabilize a pro-American Shiia government, even it becomes dictatorial and relies on sectarian cleansing (Sunnis) or sectarian wealth exclusion (Kurds)"

In other words, half a TRILLION dollars, over 3500 dead GIs, and we replaced Saddam with another "Saddam" (who's a Shiia) and this one can play us against the Iranians to cut the best deal from either of us when we pull out and 3/4 of a TRILLION have been spent and 4000+ GIs are dead, thousands maimed, and untold Iraqis are dead.

That, as Frank Capra used to say, is "Why We Fight"?

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 4:57pm
Why invaded Iraq? old stuff....We are where we are!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 4:51pm

If we don't know why we are there, then we will be unable to decide at what point the time is right to leave.

I realize history is of little importance to those who support such endeavors as the taking of Iraq, but a glance back every now and then won't kill you. That is, unless there really is such a thing as karma. Santanyana had something to say about this...

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/25/2007 @ 5:02pm
So who in Congress knew this?

Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

On page 111

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 5:17pm
...I'm stupid and the dumb shit . . . I think.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

IF you say you are, I accept! BTW, are you worthy of staying visible on my board?

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 4:53pm

I don't have to edit your statements to make them say something other than what they did say like you do, do I?

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 5:27pm
While our "Democratic standard bearers" dither:

"The Memorial Day weekend "Salute to the Troops" celebration at Stone Mountain Park (ed.- civil war battle memorial to "The Soldier of the South") is sponsored by Task Force Patriot USA, a private group that says its purpose is "sharing the fullness of life in Jesus Christ with all U.S. military, military veterans and families," and whose Web site says "Christ is our Commander-in-Chief." (ed. - he's talking about Killa' Christ. You may have seen the act in the White House Briefing Room)

In recent days, both the Task Force Patriot USA Web site and the newspaper of Robins Air Force Base, Ga., described the celebration as "an official U.S. Air Force 60th Anniversary event." Along with speeches by evangelical ministers, church services and distribution of Bibles, the published schedule promised "hourly flyovers" by Air Force jets, performances by military bands, color guard presentations, a parachute demonstration by the Army's elite Silver Wings jump team from Fort Benning, Ga., and exhibitions of Air Force equipment.

The promotional materials also said that an active-duty B-2 pilot, Air Force Maj. Brian "Jethro" Neal, would give Christian "testimony" during an outdoor worship service punctuated by a special flyover of B-2 "stealth" bombers." http://tinyurl.com/ynlmjc

Won't it be great when people like LVLIBERTY1 are openly (rather than surreptitiously) issuing orders to our armed forces?

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by GREG BACON 05/25/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

misogynist. would you say this to your 69 year old mom?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF

How does what he posted make him a misogynist?

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 5:42pm
"We should stay and stabilize a pro-American Shiia government,...

Posted by MASK 05/25/2007 @ 4:57pm

The rest, is conjecture.....Not saying it may not happen! Reality has a tradition of turning out differently than expected or planned. My side can certainly admit, sure, there were plenty of analysts giving cautions (which was their job--provide the pros and cons) but, at the time, benefits (obviously) outweighed costs. Any POTUS w/this major undertaking that DID not have this type of `thinking ahead' points/counterpoints, IS worthy of impeachment! Fresh out of my MBA program, all I did was esentially "What If" type of analysis...(interest/inflation rates climb by 1%, 2%, 3%,...economy tanks...competitor pricing....blah, blah, blah).

One reason I don't participate in Monday morning quarterback! Go check Corn.com and see my posts, very little historical back and forth! What I care far, far more, is what lies ahead....even knowing the best of us, can't provide clarity, just good-faith guesses!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 5:46pm
I don't have to edit your statements to make them say something other than what they did say like you do, do I?

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 5:27pm

So long as you act and post like someone rational when taking shots at me, fine! Otherwise, you'll be an invisible bird.

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 5:50pm
How does what he posted make him a misogynist?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person

it shows a callous unfeeling attitude towards women. I imagine you share that, which is why you needed it explained.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 5:55pm
My side can certainly admit, sure, there were plenty of analysts giving cautions (which was their job--provide the pros and cons) but, at the time, benefits (obviously) outweighed costs.

This statement is ludicrous. The obvious realities of the negative result expected were ignored while the intelligence agencies were placed under tremendous pressure to produce excuses for invasion. When even that wasn't adequate the Bush administration set up it's own faux intelligence agency (Office of Special Plans) in the Pentagon to produce completely bogus "intelligence reports".

What I care far, far more, is what lies ahead....even knowing the best of us, can't provide clarity, just good-faith guesses!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 5:46pm

You're really straining to paint this criminal act as "good faith" but you only make yourself a greater fool the more you talk.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 5:55pm
So long as you act and post like someone rational when taking shots at me, fine! Otherwise, you'll be an invisible bird.

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 5:50pm

Sounds funny coming from someone who is posting wacko, completely unreal versions of what happened as recently as a few years ago.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 5:57pm
Sounds funny coming from someone who is posting wacko, completely unreal versions of what happened as recently as a few years ago.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 5:57pm

Good, then it's settled! Goodby!

Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 6:02pm
Sorry, Happy, it sounds like you need to stick with the financial calculations and leave the international issues to the experts.

These fools went in with some severe misconceptions. Do you not remember the "We'll be greeted as liberators with flowers," crap? Or how about the original estimates on the costs of the endeavor?

It always kills me to see fools that are trained in business, computers, or anything else try to talk about political issues. It requires knowledge, understanding, perspective and much of that comes from history. Anybody that had even the slightest grasp of history in the Middle East could have easily forecasted what would come of an American invasion.

Without the cooperation of the players of the region--Iran, Syria, Saudi, ect--there is no resolution to the problem at hand. It's as simple as that. And that's not my opinion. Just read the Iraq Independent Study group. Had Jr listened to his daddy, he would have known what would happen; that is why George Walker did not go on into Iraq and topple Saddam.

A vacuum has been created. There are no magic solutions. Iran will profit from this failure of judgement. Get used to it, accept it--it is reality, like it or not.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 6:02pm
it shows a callous unfeeling attitude towards women. I imagine you share that, which is why you needed it explained.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF

He used an analogy to make his point. Are you denying that there are over the hill whores? Mentioning a fact does not make you a misogynist.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 6:05pm
Time to chuck the Constitution. Forget the myth of 'checks and balances.' The president of the United States is a dictator should he/she so choose. Bush has chosen. Congress is irrelevant. The American people are irrelevant. The courts are irrelevant.

Of course the Framers reasoned that some tyrant might end up being elected president but if he wanted to make a war, foreinstance, he'd need money and Congress held the purse strings so all would be well in lala land.

Well, all is not well and the Framers would be the first to recognize it. A Constitution written in 1787 is out-dated in 2007 - just like dirt roads, hitching posts and the necessity of alloting two months time for an elected president to get to DC to be sworn into office.

Posted by felicity at 05/25/2007 @ 6:05pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person

fine post.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 6:06pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF

Thank you.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 6:09pm
Everybody enjoy the long weekend. I know most of you will appreciate a three day break of not having to read my posts.

Adieu.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 6:12pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

I don't doubt many of you have great intentions but my nature has always been to look long-term...

Long term means understanding your goals and have a plan to accomplish them. It means establishing a base line. It means having milestones.

The only concrete thing I see you offering is this comment.

Now, "victory" today has to include an overwhelming majority of Iraqis rejecting AQ!

AQ is primarily Sunni. What makes you think this is not already the case?

I'll grant that you have to be able to adapt to circumstances. But if you cannot define the enemy, what victory looks like and have a general idea about how you are going to accomplish it - then you have a disaster on your hands. This is true of military projects. This is true of business projects. It's fundamental.

As an aside, you have any data that backs up your comments on welfare or are you making that stuff up?

Posted by srjenkins at 05/25/2007 @ 6:32pm
I know most of you will appreciate a three day break of not having to read my posts.

Adieu.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person

I will not be in that number. your posts are often spot on. if I didn't want to read your opinion I would ignore you. enjoy your weekend.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 7:16pm
Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start

By DALIA SUSSMAN Published: May 25, 2007

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

More Americans -- 72 percent -- now say that "generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track" than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was "seriously off on the wrong track," and by January of this year it was 68 percent.

The poll found Americans are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq. Slightly more than half of those polled, 51 percent, said the Democratic Party was more likely than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war.

More broadly, 53 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, while 38 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has not had a majority positive rating in Times/CBS News polls since December 2003.

As for Mr. Bush, 23 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Iraq, 72 percent disapprove; 25 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, 65 percent disapprove; and 27 percent approve of his handling of immigration issues, while 60 percent disapprove.

On the economy, 36 percent approve of his handling of the issue, and 56 percent disapprove. In the campaign against terrorism, 42 percent approve, and 52 percent disapprove.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/ 25view.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 7:52pm
Fuck the polls!

Excuse me, had to put it out there.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/25/2007 @ 8:11pm
What makes Mr. Corn think the Democratic leadership is even capable of learning anything, yet alone how next to oppose this stupid war? They could have ended this war months ago, and put Bush in the position of having to bring the troops home or strand them there. But after a couple of half-hearted attempts, the leadership caved in. They surrendered America to a terrorist who uses fear of death by al-Qaeda to frighten Americans into voting against their own best interests. They caved in to a dictator who respects neither the Constitution, the rule of law or the American people. And more people are going to die that shouldn't have to, because Democrats are too fractured and weak to stand up even when they hold real power. Their capitulation on the war will cost Democrats control of Congress next year, as well as the presidency.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 05/25/2007 @ 8:18pm
Reality has a tradition of turning out differently than expected or planned. ----Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 5:46pm

If that's a "tradition", wouldn't it have been WISE to consider the WORST case scenarios BEFORE invading Iraq?

And seriously, would YOU or any of the neo-cons have just said "Yep, it's possible"...if somebody said in May 2003 "We'll STILL be in Iraq with 150,000 troops (after adding 30,000 in March)...we'll have 3500+ dead...we'll have spent $500 BILLION dollars....still have car bombs and suicide bombs and market bombs going off....and will stay until Bush is out of office"?

Remember CHENEY said in 2002 that "estimates of $100-200 Billion are wildly exaggerated...it'll be more like $50 Billion".

And at what point in THIS future, do you say "Pull out, we've wasted enough time, lives, and money"?...six months? a year? January 2009? $550 Billion? $750 Billion? A TRILLION?

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 8:31pm
Fuck the polls!

Posted by USAPRIDE 05/25/2007 @ 8:11pm

Ah, in the spirit of new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy, why have elections, polls by another name, will of the people by another.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 9:24pm
When you have elections the ballot says choose a, b or c. If you read into it, change it in any way, your ballot is not counted.

This is basic stuff "Chad".

Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/25/2007 @ 9:31pm
Sounds funny coming from someone who is posting wacko, completely unreal versions of what happened as recently as a few years ago.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 5:57pm

Good, then it's settled! Goodby!

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 6:02pm

You'll miss me - you'll see. Now, I'll have to get my crying over right now so it doesn't ruin my whole weekend.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 9:36pm
Surge in Violence Accompanies Proposed Surge in Troops by Dahr Jamail With Ali al-Fadhily

BAGHDAD - Violence and bombings have only increased after the proposed "surge" of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"There is no argument that U.S. troops have lost the Iraqi war all over the country, and the only two solutions left are either an increase of 200,000 soldiers or a scheduled withdrawal after certain arrangements with local fighters in order to avoid casualties and tremendous chaos in the country."

"Their goal is to crush as many oppositionists as possible," Duraid Aziz, a 46-year-old lawyer and military analyst from Mosul in the north who was visiting Baghdad, told IPS. "The first step of their security plan was to raid the Adhamiya Sunni area [of Baghdad] while Mehdi [Shia militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr] death squads continue to kill Iraqis under the eyes of the U.S. Army."

"This is genocide, and anyone with eyes can see it," Muhammad Haddad, a human rights activist from Baghdad, told IPS.

Violence displaces an estimated 1,300 Iraqis every day. More than 1.7 million have been displaced so far.

(Inter Press Service)

February 14, 2007

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=10516

San Francisco Chronicle

Bush could double force by Christmas

Stewart M. Powell, Hearst Newspapers Tuesday, May 22, 2007

(05-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades. Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Comparison Study

Vietnam Troop Levels (T L) _$_______Iraq War_____

Year______TL___US Dead _$_Year__US Dead___TL_

1965__184,300____1,594__$_2006__*3000__140,000

1966 __385,300___ 6,053__$_2007__14,829__170,000

1967__485,600___11,058__$_2008 _27,731 _200,000

1968__536,100___16,511__$_2009__42,983__210,000

1969__475,200___11,527__$_2010__30,088__200,000

1970__334,600____6,065__$_2011__15,645__150,000

1971__156,800____2,348__$_2012___5,476__120,000

1972___24,200_____ 561__$_2013___1,314__100,000

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 9:37pm
Everybody enjoy the long weekend. I know most of you will appreciate a three day break of not having to read my posts.

Adieu.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 6:12pm

Have a good weekend. I probably won't because I just found out I'm moving.

I am a little disappointed that no one thanked me for not having posted here for a couple of months. I really expected more appreciation.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm
The occupation of Iraq is doomed.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm
SANDSTORMS IN IRAQ - SPREADING RADIOACTIVE POISON TO EVERY SOLDIER

"When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system ..."

Once exploded, DU munitions turn instantly into fine dust. This dust then mixes with the dust on the ground and starts to kill civilians who breathe it into their lungs. If people could avoid breathing this dust, they could avoid contamination and prevent the onset of slow, agonizing radioactive death.

Most of the warhead becomes either extremely small fragments -- though larger ones are possible -- and a whole lot of radiation dust. Thus, when a person travels through the battlefield, they breathe in the particles that are now lingering in the air, plus they get a lot of radiation on their clothes. Let us hear from an expert on this type of exposure.

"The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days. ["Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99]

Other soldiers that breathe in lesser amounts do not suffer immediately, but have a high chance of breathing in enough to cause serious problems later on. How many of the ground soldiers are contaminated enough with Depleted Uranium residue?

"Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing." [Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops", Worthington, Amy The Idaho Observer, 4/16/03]

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 9:40pm
The increased quantities of radioactive material ... used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected by radiation poisoning ..." [Ibid.]

"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq ... broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war ... continues to be used more and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from over a decade of DU exposures ... are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material ... used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected by radiation poisoning ..." [Ibid.]

Take a map of the Middle East and then calculate a radius showing 1,000 miles from these two cities, and you will discover that every single country -- except Israel -- on which DU dust is blowing is a Non-Integrating State (NEWS1833 and NEWS1906). Countries due West of Iraq receive a fraction of the DU dust blowing Eastward, because of the prevailing winds.

The good Admiral then drops the real bombshell quantification statistic:

"If we think cancer is a problem now, wait until more DU is released in wars against terror and for 'regime change' and on 'mistaken' Intelligence reports. More than 500 tons of DU munitions have been dispensed in Afghanistan. Professor Yagasaki calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki bombs in a paper presented at the 'World Uranium Weapons Conference' in Hamburg in October 2003) ... The amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs." [Ibid.]

Today, Iraq is thoroughly and heavily contaminated with uranium poisoning at the level where life cannot be sustained for very many years. Further, this type of contamination lasts for 4.5 billion years. If you study the map of the "Non-Integrating States" we show on NEWS1833, you will realize that the winds are blowing this radiated dust 1,000 miles to the southeast if the Sharqi or Sirocco winds are blowing and to the northwest if the Shamal winds are blowing. Therefore, all of the "Non-Integrating States" to the Southeast and Northwest of Iraq and Afghanistan are being irradiated! The Indian Admiral also said that New Delhi was getting irradiated uranium dust from Afghanistan, 640 miles southeast of Kabul.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2063.cfm

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/25/2007 @ 9:48pm
I am a little disappointed that no one thanked me for not having posted here for a couple of months. I really expected more appreciation.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm

Why, FRB....I missed you.

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 10:07pm
Anyone with half a brain knows that this is the Decider's war, from start to finish, and that the Democrats don't have the votes to stop it. To say, as Mr. Corn does, that the Democratic leadership was inept in handling the public relations aspect of this may be true, but seems pretty trivial. Regardless, the killing and maiming goes on. And we all know who is to blame.

Posted by sgoodman at 05/25/2007 @ 10:50pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm

welcome back.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 10:51pm
Fuck the polls!

Excuse me, had to put it out there.

Posted by USAPRIDE 05/25/2007 @ 8:11pm | ignore this person

what you are really saying is fuck the people who don't agree with me, a sentiment not exactly unknown around here.

don't kid yourself, the repubs are very well aware of the polls, and order their own.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/25/2007 @ 10:58pm
Fuck the polls!

Excuse me, had to put it out there.

Posted by USAEMBARRASSMENT 05/25/2007 @ 8:11pm | ignore this person

"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner - 2006

Dumbass....

itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 05/25/2007 @ 11:21pm
"Have a good weekend. I probably won't because I just found out I'm moving.

I am a little disappointed that no one thanked me for not having posted here for a couple of months. I really expected more appreciation.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm

That's because very few read your posts...I didn't know you were gone, and well, I didn't know you were here either.

:)

Posted by john maasch at 05/25/2007 @ 11:21pm
Fuck the polls!

Excuse me, had to put it out there.

Posted by USAEMBARRASSMENT 05/25/2007 @ 8:11pm

For the most part, polls, like statistics, can be manipulated to say anything one wants...Bushfools doesn't deficate without one, while others ignore them until after election day...

I don't pay much attention to them after I figure out who sponsored, paid or has/had an interest in how they "come out"..

I undersatnd what USA means.

Posted by john maasch at 05/25/2007 @ 11:25pm
.." I just found out I'm moving. "

To France? Russia? Cuba? How could you just find out you are moving? Someone in charge of you? Just sneak up on you? Not paying attention?

Posted by john maasch at 05/25/2007 @ 11:27pm
I think the Democratic Party needs urgently marketing-image experts. Republicans have shown they knock down Dems for that matter. And the most important market issue is patriotism. But trying not to be seen as "unpatriotic" they are seen as confused, undecided, incompetent, or flip-floppers. Remember the presidential campaign when Kerry was marketed by the other side as undecided? Or why on Earth most of the American people say that on national security they trust more Reps than Dems? This issue is at the heart of the vote in Congress. Nobody wants to be seen as unpatriotic that does not want to give resources for the well-being of our soldiers. Don't they see that precisely what is hurting Dems is compromise? Dems, no more compromises, ever. We want bold moves, we want audacity. A marketing strategy that will convince people that patriotism is not about war but about love to our land and roots. That for the specific case of terrorism a gram of intelligence (spionage) is far better than ten tons of tanks. We want a stalemate with the President. Why is it that now that Mr. Gore's image is bolder and seen so much stronger has he gained such audience and respect? We must just stop being afraid of being called dovish and liberal. If it is all about names why don't we call them what they are: hypocrites and market effectively that image to the public? It won't be that hard if we try in a bold and decided way.

Posted by Jorge T at 05/25/2007 @ 11:31pm
but I am bound to supporting our CIC UNLESS I'm convinced there was definitve `malice'.

That's your problem right there. Unless you're in the military, he's isn't your CIC. He certainly isn't mine. I don't take marching orders from him.

Posted by brunowe at 05/26/2007 @ 12:18am
Dear Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, You're both doing a heckuva job. signed - your draft-dodging bubble-boy president

Posted by chasemonster at 05/26/2007 @ 12:30am
Posted by JORGE T 05/25/2007 @ 11:31pm

May 26, 2007

Quote of the Day

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." – Alfred Adler

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 03:17am
do not beleive all news and information about middle east. All the media and other powers has beeen owned. some relaible information can be gotten from here.

M iddleeast [fallindirectory.com] Society [pickupinfo.net] Newspaper inte rnet [obtaininfo.net]

be open mind...

Posted by hattaro at 05/26/2007 @ 03:20am
Morgue Data Show Increase In Sectarian Killings in Iraq

By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, May 24, 2007; Page A01

BAGHDAD, May 23 -- More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.

From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.

Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the security plan, acknowledged in an interview that the number of unidentified corpses is rising and said there has been a spike in sectarian assaults by Shiite militias, especially elements of the Mahdi Army, the militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

"We are aware of this happening, yes," Qanbar said Tuesday, seated in his office inside one of the palaces of the late ousted president Saddam Hussein. "We have noticed that those gangs are again attacking people."

The rise in sectarian violence has followed a recent increase in mass-casualty suicide attacks and car bombings that have targeted mostly Shiite areas in Baghdad and other parts of the country. U.S. officials have acknowledged that they have had little success in curtailing such attacks, which have occurred with greater frequency since the start of the security plan than before.

In the 14 weeks preceding the start of the plan on Feb. 14, at least 821 people died in 11 attacks -- typically suicide car bombings -- that killed more than 20 people at a time, according to a Washington Post analysis. There have been at least 20 such attacks in the 14 weeks since the start of the plan, causing a death toll of at least 1,098, the analysis showed.

"The level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not the strategy that we have implemented is working," Bush said May 10. "Since our operation began, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially."

Aggregate figures for Baghdad and eight other provinces also show recent increases: In January, 360 bodies were found; in February, 400; in March, 451; in April, 421; and from May 1 to 22, 443.

declines in sectarian violence since the beginning of the plan were largely attributed to Sadr ordering his militia, the largest and most powerful in Iraq, to lie low, even if provoked by U.S. forces or Sunni insurgents.

By March, U.S. officials were promoting the lower levels of sectarian killing as signs of progress, even as car bombings and suicide attacks rose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2007/05/23/AR2007052301780_3.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 04:17am
Q. Does anyone know the difference between the Democrats that voted to fund Bush's war without end and a 69 year-old hooker that is so used up that the only tricks she can get paid for are $20 BJ's in a dark alley?

A. Neither do I. If anyone does know the difference, please respond.

P.S. My apologies to all the"working women" of the world. My intent was not to slander or malign you, but to prove a point

Posted by Greg Bacon at 05/26/2007 @ 08:16am
Q. Does anyone know the difference between the Democrats that voted to fund Bush's war without end and a 69 year-old hooker that is so used up that the only tricks she can get paid for are $20 BJ's in a dark alley?

A. I DO...NOTHING.

They both are acting in their own interest. This should be the warning shot accross the progressives bow of their dingy, that they misstake for a ship. The hard true is you are the hard left and pose NO threat to the party and they have decided, correctly, that follolwing your wants and policy wishes will cost them votes and they feel free to by pass you.

It is really that simple. They view you as kooks and loons that can be ignored..like FROMSHITFORBRAINS...he laments no one really missed him when he was gone, not realising, no one noticed...even when he "returned"....and so are the hard left..all fringes are treated that way..on the right as well as the left...everyone notices the guy who shouts in church...and then they wish he would go away...and he never gets taken seriously, just looked at...and ignored, sometimes just oitied. So it is with the bulk here.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 08:26am
oitied, should be pitied, like my typing.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 08:28am
FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm

"I just found out I'm moving"

One of the more intriguing asides I've read here, one begins to wonder what the reality of the situation is. Job transfer? Thrown out by outraged lover? Sick relative needs care? Called home by KGB (or whatever they call it these days)?

... and, when I awoke, I was alone, this bird had flown

Whatever, please return when settled. Those of us who can't talk in a straight line enjoy your clarity of position.

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/26/2007 @ 09:27am
JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 08:26am

Please be advised that your oft-stated dismissal of the far left can also be applied to the weirdo libertarian right.

There is one important difference. The kooks on the right are fond of arming themselves, so it's less common to actually see the politicians flush them down the crapper.

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/26/2007 @ 09:35am
"In the last few years, we have seen the appointment of a good number of immigration judges with no background whatsoever in immigration … which really makes you wonder how it is they are being appointed to those positions," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. in Washington.

In light of Goodling's testimony, Williams said, "I think we might have an answer."

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:30am
Goodling testified that as a senior counsel to Gonzales in 2005 and 2006, she considered factors such as party affiliation and political donations when screening immigration judge applicants.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:30am
The selection process that Goodling described also appeared at odds with Gonzales' own stated efforts to reform the trouble-plagued immigration-law system by bringing in experts and establishing tougher performance standards for judges.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:31am
The admission by former Justice Department official Monica M. Goodling this week that federal immigration judges were screened for their political credentials and loyalty to the Republican Party in possible violation of civil service laws is drawing new attention to the usually low-profile immigration bench.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:31am
These lawyers are among a growing number of the nation's more than 200 immigration judges who have little or no experience in the law they were appointed to enforce.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:31am
he new jurists include a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican Party, who was a legal advisor to the Bush Florida recount team after the 2000 presidential election. There is also a former GOP congressional aide who had tracked voter fraud issues for the Justice Department, and a Texan appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush to a seat on the state library commission.

One thing missing on many of their resumes: a background in immigration law.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:32am
Immigration judges lack apt backgrounds

A growing number of the jurists have little or no experience in that area of law. Some have strong Republican resumes.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer May 26, 2007

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:32am
The hiring and firing of immigration judges are covered by federal civil service laws, which prohibit discrimination based on political association.

The Justice Department has launched a widening internal review to see whether laws were broken in the hiring of the immigration judges as well as career prosecutors.

Goodling testified that she was told by another Justice official that because the judges are appointed by the attorney general, she could include political factors. Responding to her testimony, a Justice Department spokesman said Thursday that the department had never taken that view.

Considering political affiliation in filling civil service positions is a violation of the Hatch Act, which is designed to keep party politics separate from the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Such a violation could result in the firing of any employees involved in the illegal screening, and could trigger discrimination litigation by applicants who were declined positions.

Some lawmakers think standards for evaluating candidates have become too lax. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has proposed requiring that prospective immigration judges have at least five years of experience in immigration law before being considered for the bench.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:35am
Gonzales last year chastised immigration judges for "intemperate or even abusive" conduct toward people seeking asylum in the United States.

As part of a comprehensive review of U.S. immigration courts, he is ordering that judges be tested about their knowledge of the law and undergo periodic performance reviews.

Some immigration judges said the recent hiring of politically connected judges undermined his goal of improving the quality of the bench and its decision making.

"The irony of it is … he has put a larger number of people with no immigration backgrounds in as judges who would not be subject to the new requirements," said Denise Slavin, an immigration judge in Miami since 1995 and president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges.

"This highlights the concern we have about the public perception of judicial independence and integrity in the immigration courts' system."

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:36am
Impeach 1. Frito, 2. cHeney 3. hsuB, in that order, asap and judiciously. Clean up our government of the new con 'supporters', servicers of the dic'tator philosophy.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:40am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 10:40am

Yeah, HSUB...I'm sure they'll get right on those impeachments....

right after they cut funding and force Bush to end the war in Iraq!

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 10:59am
From DavidCorn.com, bold are mine:

May 25, 2007

Fitzgerald Speaks...Plame...Yes, She Was a Covert Officer

In the Valerie Plame case,...

On Friday, Fitzgerald...notes:

It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

In other words, there!.....

Fitzgerald concludes the memo with a summation of the case:...

Posted by David Corn at 10:45 PM

---------------------------------------------------------

This was an important part of the puzzle and unfortunately, didn't break in the way I had thought would be the case. However, having read the key sections of the IIPA while this case was raging, I'd still interpret them the way, despite what Fitz's conclusion was.

What this goes to show is simply how reasonable people can interpret yet another set of written words so differently.....this endless fights over the meanings of words ("Is" is a great example) explain why THERE ARE TOO MANY DAMN LAWYER-LEGISLATORS who draft ever-increasing laws/regulations which then, become their lawyer buddies' ever-increasing paychecks!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 11:08am
Bushfools doesn't deficate without one, while others ignore them until after election day...

I don't pay much attention to them after I figure out who sponsored, paid or has/had an interest in how they "come out"..

I undersatnd what USA means.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/25/2007 @ 11:25bm

Q. Does anyone know the difference between the Democrats that voted to fund Bush's war without end and a 69 year-old hooker ...

A. I DO...NOTHING.

They both are acting in their own interest.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 08:26am

Quite a little white box you live in there Maaschy. You're not only a self-made idiot-- you're a self-inflicted blind idiot. First I show impartial scientific stats, polls that show congress voted to do exactly what about 70% of the US citizenry are asking them to do and you belittle the science (you don't believe in evolution as well?)-- And without proving any flaw in the science or bias, you proceed to condemn the dem progressives in congress for not doing what the people wanted!

Perhaps that is why you spot loons and kooks so easily-- you are the leader of the loons and kooks seeking followers to your loony kook cult of a new con reality show called the Monster Maasch Dancing Idol'aters, audience and contestants chosen only from new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy. Be safe living your little white box. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously-- except for other new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy (i.e. other kook and loon wingnuts).

Apart from that, you're a funny guy in a creepy-kloonky way. Hhahahahah

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 11:19am
Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 11:08am | ignore this person

another repub whining about large paychecks.unseemly to say the least.

as for lawyers in politics, what would you prefer, business executives, like Bush or Cheney?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 10:40am

Yeah, HSUB...I'm sure they'll get right on those impeachments....

right after they cut funding and force Bush to end the war in Iraq!

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 10:59am

I've already explained that like 10 times-- everyone that makes decisions on the hill, except for the new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy, look at all the stats and voter trend considerations. And they are repub voters like war on ME looking people, but tend to abandon proven corrupt types, euh too dirty-- eeeucky. Thus the repubs in congress will begrudgingly go with dems on subpoenas and oversight discovery-- leading to impeachment per repub base is fickled like that and they know it.

So if Frito doesn't resign like real soon, (within a month), want to wager congress will/won't initiate impeachment? I say they do.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 11:35am
...Long term means understanding your goals and have a plan to accomplish them. It means establishing a base line. It means having milestones.

AQ is primarily Sunni. What makes you think this is not already the case?

I'll grant that you have to be able to adapt to circumstances. But if you cannot define the enemy, what victory looks like and have a general idea about how you are going to accomplish it - then you have a disaster on your hands....

As an aside.....your comments on welfare or are you making that stuff up?

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/25/2007 @ 6:32pm

SR,

You are one of the articulate commenters and I respect the time you seem to always take to tackle opposing views. I'll generally NOT respond in kind (for time & reseach), but I will in spirit!

One philosophy (of mine) to take into consideration: At my age (53), having done alot of this and that, I rely on my life experiences, observations and gut instincts to reach conclusions on `issues of the day'. Excessive "What Ifs" lead to inaction and time wasting and my toleration of either, has severely eroded in these 53 years.

Let me quickly address the last "aside" on welfare this way: IF welfare's effects did NOT resemble what I alluded to, then why was the major reform of 1996, one of Clinton's great achievements, undertaken? Similarly, what led to over 2 million (WSJ menitoned this several days back) previous welfare receipients to have entered the workforce since then? Sorry, I won't take the time to dig up actual data. By now, anyone over 40 mostly knows that welfare as it were, was a total failure....for folks under 30 (just about all of those here, I bet are on my ignore list).

On AQ-in-Iraq, let me respond with my question. IF as you imply, victory over IQ is "already the case" becasue they are part of the minority Sunnis, then why has AQ-in-Iraq grew steadily from about 2004 to now? ....Though there are some promising signs that this is now REVERSING. One has to harbor hope that as the death-oriented ideology unfolds in full, enough reasoned people will realize their early follies of either sympathizing or actively participating w/AQI.

Reversing to the last "long term" issue, specifically as it relates to geopolitics. Unlike stocks, which I know very well and have a very respectable batting average (.800 in beating market), geopolitics have far too many variables that a `player' has direct or indirect controls. While our country's long term goal is containment (or near-eradication) of WMD in the `wrong' hands and Islamic fanaticism, I am certain that the means to achieve that will be highly subject to change (`reactionary' is one word that comes to mind).

Ours is a culture and civilazion that pay attention to criticisms and respects humanity (but do violate them at times), but our enemies have no such `natural' constraints. To me, an ideology that fosters `martyrdom' among its people, mostly young `martyrs', and kills indiscriminately, MUST be contained. I view them far more dangerously than the conventional enemies that competes on number of nuclear warheads and armed forces. From this, you can also infer that I rank WMD lower than the religion-based BS. Not that WMD proliferation is unimportant!

As my aside, this is probably the longest personal comments I have ever made on any blog!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 11:54am
...what would you prefer, business executives, like Bush or Cheney?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/26/2007 @ 11:21am

It should be obvious! Lawyers make nothing and while they have very important roles to play in modernity, to structure it and to enforce it, they are bluntly speaking, parasites!

For all the problems of capitalism, there is nothing better, IMHO. Thus, I far prefer a business background in the WH and Congress, than politicians. Pols, as you just got another rude awakening two nights ago, are far too calculating trying to guess which way they can sucker their voters. Busines types, of course, are just as subject to corruption but at least, anybody in this country CAN BECOME a business person even if starting as a street vendor selling hot dogs! Congress and the WH, indeed, are exclusive clubs reserved mostly for those who know how to finagle the meaning of the word "Is" than to help raise the tide!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:02pm
HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 12:02pm

What a crock. Your MBA president wastes more money per hour than any excutive in our history.

And if someone burned your stock-trading butt with some juicy insider information, you'd be grateful for a few of those "parasites" to help in busting the creeps, right?

Posted by MyParadigm at 05/26/2007 @ 12:14pm
I'll generally NOT respond in kind (for time & reseach),...

By now, anyone over 40 mostly knows that welfare as it were, was a total failure....

On AQ-in-Iraq, let me respond with my question. IF as you imply, victory over IQ is "already the case" becasue they are part of the minority Sunnis, then why has AQ-in-Iraq grew steadily from about 2004 to now? ....

Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 11:54

This is really sad. Someone that states he does no reseach but has definitive conclusions based on little more than an isolated point of view. I for one cannot believe this person has matured beyond 15 years, perhaps like hsuB, has a stunted sense of cutiousity per a trauma at an early age? Or perhaps he is 15 but to confuse the discussion sites being in his 50's as though an older uninformed opinion is more valued with age, like cheap wine from a bad vine becoming an expensive wine with age!

Why is AQ growing? Because US troops are there. Get the US out and the Iraqis will battle AQ for their own land just like before we went in. And BTW the number of attacks and killings are going up not down. Read reports coming out from Iraqis, Baghdad Coroner, not from the hsuB/cHeney admin, chronic liars. I already posted that info here earlier.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 12:21pm
cutiousity ha, should read curiosity

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 12:23pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 12:21pm

HFOOLS,

You are THE BANDWIDTH hogs on The Nation and I keep trying to find a reason to invisiblize you. Try a bit harder and I'll guarantee you success. I think you are a borderline 30~40 yrs old, heh?

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:27pm
Ha p,

You are 15 then. Sure act like it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 12:32pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 11:54am

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond here and elsewhere. I know doing research is difficult and time-consuming - and it is something I have an advantage with because it is what I do for a living.

However, I would say that it is precisely because research is difficult and that it often provides insight that is counter-intuitive that we need to do more of it. The "gut" or intuition, as Iraq clearly shows, is a bad place to begin your policy decisions.

Luckily, many policy areas have people that are doing research for us, so we don't have to re-create the wheel. Of course, you have to deal with the biases that come from the agendas of these groups - which is why you have to make an effort to get a sense of what each of the groups concerned with this area are saying.

Since I am a Quaker, one of the places I tend to start for issues that I personally care about is American Friends Service Committee or Friends Committee on National Legislation. They often have summary booklets and articles:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0605-08.htm

http://www.afsc.org/economic-justice/AJustMinimumWage.pdf

These certainly have an agenda, but they focus on facts. One's that are relevant such as:

"More than half of employed former welfare recipients were unable to pay rent, buy food, afford medical care and/or pay for phone and electric service."

Based on your WSJ that is at least a million people that can't afford basics - not to mention their families.

Personally, I'm not interested in defending past programs. I am concerned about people that are suffering right now, and making policy decisions that will help them. It is clear that the reforms have also failed, and we need to make changes.

As for Iraq, I wonder if it is more complicated. Could it be the presence of an occupying foreign power drives people into the AQ camp? Is it possible that more peaceful approaches will defuse the situation and reduce AQ's appeal? I think the answer is yes there.

I'm not going to debate the intent of AQ. What I will debate is the capability of AQ to make their wishes a reality and the effective strategies against it. And we need to face the fact that brute force is not effective; it strengthens them. The fact that violence has been increasing illustrates this point.

Lets also be real about the WMD issue. Do you think the Iran would feel the need to develop nuclear weapons if we had not just invaded their neighbor and made threats against them? If the objective is to contain WMD, then the regular military is not the solution to that problem.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 12:35pm
And if someone burned your stock-trading butt with some juicy insider information, you'd be grateful for a few of those "parasites" to help in busting the creeps, right?

Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/26/2007 @ 12:14pm

WRONG! I play the game knowing the risks! IF one can't afford to take licks, don't play!

I lost heavily on Enron (bought at what I thought was a batterd $10/share but sold at <$0.25) and one or two other speculative type stocks. The key word is "speculative"....those kinds of stocks are not your mom-and-pop keep-in-the-safebox securities--even when they were darlins of Wall St.

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:35pm
You are THE BANDWIDTH hogs on The Nation

what are you talking about? there seems to be plenty of space here, considering the huge volume plunger and rese post here. Hsub is a valued member here, his posts are consistently informative and free of cant, something that I am not able to say about you.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 12:32pm

Congrats,....you will save me more time when I check in at The Nation!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:44pm
We shouldn't be gambling our troops like they are stock in a market, they die-- we lose more than a few bucks, more than even our army, we lose the soul of our nation on speculation and not on a greater principle already established.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 12:45pm
plunger and rese post here. Hsub is a valued member here, his posts are consistently informative and free of cant, something that I am not able to say about you.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/26/2007 @ 12:36pm

Those two were my first....never even bothered to `spar' w/them.

HFOOLS overdo, IMO, his messengering of other news! I don't visit The Nation like I do at aggregators like Drudge or Real Clear Politics. I do admit, on some occassions, reading the first couple of paragraphs of what HFOOLS bring in. I am more interested in reading peoples' OWN views. You may notice that when I bring something in, it's been `cut down'....certainly, sometimes to emphasize what I thnk is important!

What I'll not tolerate is stupidity and impulsive insults...signs of immaturity that I don't want to make time for! With recent knowledge of whatever you had w/NEW DAWN (?) as a clear example. I do give warnings.....except for those two names you cited.

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/26/2007 @ 12:36pm

Thanks. I do try to add to the conversation as best I can considering time limitations. Guess i don't have worry about wasting Ha' p's.

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/26/2007 @ 12:35pm

Quakers must be saints. Your patience is incredible. Have you taught in a school before?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/26/2007 @ 12:36pm

I have very few people on ignore, but I do ignore Hsub because he doesn't know how to use links - same goes for Rese. To my mind, if your post doesn't mainly consist of your own writing, then you are wasting people's time.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 12:54pm
JR,

I finally got curious enough to do a count due to our exchange.

Of the 146 Comments, I see just 50....and quite a few are my own since I had been a bit uncharacteristically `acitve'....which I tend to be when it's David Corn.

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 12:56pm
"First I show impartial scientific stats, polls that show congress voted to do exactly what about 70% of the US citizenry are asking them to do and you belittle the science (you don't believe in evolution as well?)--"

I'd say 100% want the US troops out of Iraq and harms way...I just don't think 70% want out the way most here want them out...in a cloud of dust running for the hills....leaving a bigger mess than was there today. We all know Bush screwed the pooch there and miscalculated, but now I don't think we should miscalculated again and disappear in the drak of night, informing our "hosts"(the AQ and insurgency) of the time and day.

"(you don't believe in evolution as well?)--"-

-I believe in the combination of both...when I see my daughters smile at the sight of a new born bird while holding on to my neck and kissing my cheek....I somehow lose the slim on the clay rocks in the sunshine methane atmosphere with lightening image...but on the other hand, as I watch National Geographic Channel and politics I am remined of evolution and survival of the fitest..

"you are the leader of the loons and kooks seeking followers to your loony kook cult of a new con reality show called the Monster Maasch Dancing Idol'aters, audience and contestants chosen only from new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy. Be safe living your little white box."

Dictator? I think the one you believe the dictator will depart office voulentarily in Jan 09 as have all the other dictators of American Presidential History.

I am not sure where this even comes from but I understand why we went to Iraq, for me WMDs had nothing to do with it, nor did it have anything tied with 9/11....so I don't think I am leading anyone anywhere...as far as kooks...that is a term that is symbiotic with the hard left...kook sections, lefty loons....the right has right wing nuts....you need to get your terminology correct.

And finaly, but true, I never really care if any one agrees with me here or anywhere else...I just call em' as I see em'....so it is of no importance if one agrees with me or not. I approach from my opinon based on my experience and thoughts. Mine.

And my typing is what it is...sorry.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:05pm
Or why on Earth most of the American people say that on national security they trust more Reps than Dems? This issue is at the heart of the vote in Congress.

Posted by JORGE T 05/25/2007 @ 11:31pm

You're information is out of date. The Republicans aren't hitting any homerun on that:

On the broader question of National Security, the GOP fares better but not nearly as well as in years gone by. Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the Democrats more on National Security while 44% prefer Republicans. Men, on balance, prefer Republicans by three percentage points while women prefer Democrats by eight points. Still, a toss-up with voters on National Security is quite an improvement for Democrats. Ever since the Vietnam War era, National Security has been one of the Republican's most potent issues." http://tinyurl.com/2wvjpl

Posted by fromredbird at 05/26/2007 @ 1:06pm
I would like it if you or someone could post all Representatives and Senators (Democrat and Republican) who voted for this year's Iraq funding bill. It will be good to know come primary/election time.

Posted by myfriendmadhu at 05/26/2007 @ 1:06pm
"WRONG! I play the game knowing the risks! IF one can't afford to take licks, don't play! "

RIGHT, I lost my ass this first half of the year...and will make it up in the second.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:06pm
I have very few people on ignore, but I do ignore Hsub because he doesn't know how to use links -

Posted by SRJENKINS 05/26/2007 @ 12:54pm

Ha, I guess you're not as patient as a saint after all... You should still do some teaching if you haven't, good info and way of sharing.

BTW I do cut a lot out of posted aticles if they're long unless it sounds very important. The reason I do post some articles is that I notice a lot of readers will more often want a preview before they follow a link. Although I do sometimes lob off the link if I'm in a hurry I'll go back and attempt to find it if asked.

I don't have anyone on my ignore list, too counter to why I'm here.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 1:08pm
"I would like it if you or someone could post all Representatives and Senators (Democrat and Republican) who voted for this year's Iraq funding bill. It will be good to know come primary/election time.

Posted by MYFRIENDMADHU 05/26/2007 @ 1:06pm "

Why was space with a cut and paste? Go to the Senate site.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:10pm
FROMREDBIRD 05/25/2007 @ 9:39pm

"I just found out I'm moving"

One of the more intriguing asides I've read here, one begins to wonder what the reality of the situation is. Job transfer? Thrown out by outraged lover? Sick relative needs care? Called home by KGB (or whatever they call it these days)?

... and, when I awoke, I was alone, this bird had flown

Whatever, please return when settled. Those of us who can't talk in a straight line enjoy your clarity of position.

Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/26/2007 @ 09:27am

KG what? No connection there and if there were I wouldn't be accepting any invitations home.

I accepted a position in a different location. I was made an offer I couldn't refuse. I've got a few weeks but I should be filling trash barrels right now.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/26/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by MYFRIENDMADHU 05/26/2007 @ 1:06pm

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/147/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/265/

You're welcome.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 1:16pm
This was an important part of the puzzle and unfortunately, didn't break in the way I had thought would be the case. However, having read the key sections of the IIPA while this case was raging, I'd still interpret them the way, despite what Fitz's conclusion was.

What this goes to show is simply how reasonable people can interpret yet another set of written words so differently.....this endless fights over the meanings of words ("Is" is a great example) explain why THERE ARE TOO MANY DAMN LAWYER-LEGISLATORS who draft ever-increasing laws/regulations which then, become their lawyer buddies' ever-increasing paychecks!

Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 11:08am

Is that another way of saying that what you said earlier was pure misdirection that you can no longer get away with? I don't know. I wasn't here.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/26/2007 @ 1:17pm
I'd say 100% want the US troops out of Iraq and harms way...I just don't think 70% want out the way most here want them out...in a cloud of dust running for the hills....leaving a bigger mess than was there today. We all know Bush screwed the pooch there and miscalculated, but now I don't think we should miscalculated again and disappear in the drak of night, informing our "hosts"(the AQ and insurgency) of the time and day.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 1:05pm

That's not what the poll I posted said and I doubt if many here want our troops to cause more chaos leaving in a way that isn't reasonable considering the circumstances. My argument was that you stated you look for the bias in a poll before dismissing it and then stated that dems in congress were voting against the people's wants when the poll stated the opposite and you didn't counter the poll's scientific method in anyway. Thus revielling your uninformed and stilted bias as based on simply nothing but bias itself.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 1:24pm
WRONG! I play the game knowing the risks! IF one can't afford to take licks, don't play!

I lost heavily on Enron (bought at what I thought was a batterd $10 share but sold at $0.25) and one or two other speculative type stocks. The key word is "speculative"....those kinds of stocks are not your mom-and-pop keep-in-the-safebox securities--even when they were darlins of Wall St.

Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 12:35pm

I'm thoroughly convinced slap happy- you are a certified "stock trading genius". People in your rarified classification are generally identifiable by their inability to offer real proof of their genius and their infectious need to inform you of it anyway.

Enron. Nice pick.

Posted by fromredbird at 05/26/2007 @ 1:29pm
Abraham Lincoln, writing to William Herndon in 1848:

But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Posted by maddox at 05/26/2007 @ 1:30pm
-I believe in the combination of both...when I see my daughters smile at the sight of a new born bird while holding on to my neck and kissing my cheek....I somehow lose the slim on the clay rocks in the sunshine methane atmosphere with lightening image...but on the other hand, as I watch National Geographic Channel and politics I am remined of evolution and survival of the fitest..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 1:05pm

I'm glad you have some feelings and believe in survival of the fittest too but won't eat your own kids:} I'm sure it has little to do with a religion or none of us would be here to have created religion in our own image, (kinda like what we're doing with computers...).

In anycase back to the science of polls: if you find no reason for the poll I posted being biased, do you then believe it? If so then why say the dem progressives voted against the wishes of the people when the poll says the opposite and one would draw a different conclusion?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 1:24pm

I understand what your post and the poll said...and my post stands..

By stating , "going against the wishes of those here,.." I am refering to the endless demands here to get out now, impeach now, end the war now, bring home the troops now crowd, and they reside here and pimp for almost all things democratic/progressive party...that those very same people have been ignored by the same dems they want to see in power instead of anything repub...

scienticfic proof? Look at the vote cast this week...there is your proof..flys in the face of all ths posters here, which, maybe contrary to your opinion, represent the far left, whose wishes they(the dems) safely ignore at no peril at the voting booth.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:36pm
Dictator? I think the one you believe the dictator will depart office voulentarily in Jan 09 as have all the other dictators of American Presidential History.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 1:05pm

Why wait? Impeachment is very constitutional-- considering hsuB's admin disasters to our nation will only continue to drags us all down. Well maybe not drag down the MIC/big business war profiteering new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 1:40pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 1:36pm

And I believe everyone here wants to begin the process. That's very different than a mob rush you're imagination tends to exagerate.

If I'm wrong let another lefty correct me and not be putting your opinion into other's mind or are you a phychic?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 1:46pm
Aside from mismanaging the war, which I see as an easy thing that could and will be done by democrats as well(see VN), I feel his main path for my disdain is his lack of meaningful immigration policy and protecting our borders from our neighbors...If we had to invade anyone, I would have suggested Mexico..they have oil, food production,warm water potrs year round, industrious population, short distance to travel, they like baseball....I see no reason for impeachment..nor did I for Clinton..he screwed himself on that ne..but, I understand his desire when considering Hillary..I would give him a pass.....

anyway..lunch time...I am being silly and am done now.

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:48pm
Posted by MADDOX 05/26/2007 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person

very nice. the north almost came to war against england, which would have been devastating for the union. Lincoln's secretary of state Seward, was the Cheney of his time, with bellicose rhetoric, which Lincoln had to soft pedal to avoid war.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 1:50pm
..."are you a phychic?"

Kinda...Hillary is the Dem nominee and candidate in 08. It is done...I will admit to some errors tho and pay off those errors with fine ales...

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:50pm
OK, Hillary vs Romney. who wins?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 1:51pm
a centrist vs an opportunist?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 1:52pm
JR,

I KNEW you were in the weeds!!!

Romney, by 1 vote and the thing ends up in court. After that..who knows...

In reality, Hillary will win NY, CAL, PENN, NJ, OH..all the big states with the highest minority populations and will probably win the WH.

I like Romney, but really don't know much about him..I am still trying to figure out how he won the Governors chair in Mass. I would like to see Fred Thompson enter and see where he can go..

I also believe it would be in the nations best interest to have a candidate, from either party, who can win by a comfortable margin as opposed to a 50.1% and claim a mandate..

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:56pm
For me, Hillary is no centrist, and all politicians are opportunists...I don't know about you, but I have never witnessed a grass roots cry for Hillary, or any one..closest would have to have been Nader...

so, I don't agree with your premise or terms..

But I do understand your entry into the conversation hoping for another loss by me and an encounter at the ale house..

nicht war?

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 1:59pm
Posted by MADDOX 05/26/2007 @ 1:30pm

Thanks for adding this comment. Great stuff.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 2:00pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/26/2007 @ 2:00pm

Yeah, but we should have taken Canada at some point...:)

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 2:01pm
And then Gore enters stage left and center stage to say yes I've desided to enter the debate and run for the president of the US of A.

"Even though Clinton is the clear front-runner, one set of numbers does not work in her favor. In the latest poll, more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents rate Gore (84%) favorably than Clinton (74%). Edwards' favorable rating is 70% among Democrats and Obama's is 65%. Obama's lower rating is attributable to the fact he is less well known, as 21% of Democrats are not familiar enough with him to rate him. That compares with 4% having no opinion of Clinton, 5% of Gore, and 20% of Edwards.

In recent weeks, Clinton's favorability ratings among Democrats have declined somewhat, from 80% or better to the current 74%. Meanwhile, Gore's image has improved from 72% in early February to 84% today. Edwards' popularity also received a small boost following the announcement of his wife's recurrence of cancer. Views of Obama have held steady in recent weeks."

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27019&VERSION=p

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 2:14pm
BUSHFOOLS,

Does the poll ask if Gore can with the WH against any of the Repubs at this point? Or if they(the public) has Gore fatigue and thinks his time has past?

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 2:34pm
It's an 'either or' at this point as I'm sure if there's not another recent poll out there, there will be soon-- asking whether he's not competing better poll-wise with Hillery (other than favorability) per he has not enterred into the race yet or he's had his chance, his time has gone.

However I do believe as more corruption is revealed via congressional oversight, a/the 2008 theme will emerge: Correcting Course/Mistakes, hsuB/cHeney will be viewed as one 'gigantic' mistake, THE mistake of the 21st century.

What better way to correct it than to re-elect the correct president, Al Gore! People enjoy the idea that we can do-over mistakes. The what-if factor will be part of it as it is now.

The downside will be as it will be with anyone that comes in on 2009, all the damage hsuB/cHeney leave to fix. It'll be tough. That's why I want to start now. Like fixing debt, national character, the constitution, the longer you wait the harder it gets to fix.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 2:14pm

HSUB, curious....rating 1-near impossible to 10-almost totally likely...

what do you rate the chances of--

A. Bills of impeachment against either Bush or Cheney out by late October this year?

B. Al Gore just swooping in and taking the Dem nomination away from the people already in the race?

Curious to see if you're highly imaginative...or insane.

hehe

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 2:58pm
Masky,

Are not then possibly insane for even asking?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 3:02pm
Heheh_ Are you not then possibly insane for even asking?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 3:05pm
In a recent California Field poll, Gore is second at 25%, behind Hillary Clinton by 6 percentage points. However, in the California Bay Area, Gore is the leading candidate.[1] Gore also has the highest approval rating when compared to other Democratic nominees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_presidential_candidates

The polls that have been run with and without Gore considered are somewhat flawed in that Gore hasn't annouced his candidacy nor the time or message isn't being voiced nor the WH corruption from congressional oversight isn't in full expossure overdrive yet. Read interesting comments here:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Al-Gore.html

What's latest you'd say, if Gore enters the race, would be the least insane in your view?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 3:29pm
Yeah, but we should have taken Canada at some point...:)

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person

taken them out for drinks? or a smoke on the curb in front of the pub?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 3:33pm
A. Bills of impeachment against either Bush or Cheney out by late October this year?

B. Al Gore just swooping in and taking the Dem nomination away from the people already in the race?

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 2:58pm

I always try not to make anyone insane:

A. 8, soon a 9 once Frito resigns and/or articles of impeachment written for him

B. 6, soon a 7 per A.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 3:05pm

No, I figure you put impeachment at about an "8"...but if you put "Gore comes back and wins the Dem nomination from Hillary, Obama, and Edward" at anything higher than a "2"...

you're truly nuts.

If Thompson doesn't announce for the Repubs in less than 4 weeks, he doesn't have a shot in hell (and even that's dicey). Gore lost the 2008 nomination six-ten months ago, when he failed to announce and start raising money as fast as HRC, Barack or John. It's all eaten up now.

Same for Thompson, though the GOP money boys have deeper pockets and the Religious Righties with no good choice (neither Giuliani, McCain or Romney inspire much trust in them)...can poney up for Thompson.

But Gore? Sorry, that train pulled out last Fall and isn't coming back to the station. He had his best shot when "An Inconvenient Carbon Credit Scheme"...uh...I mean "Truth" came out...and he missed it.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 4:28pm
B. 6, soon a 7 per A.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 4:28pm

Close, but just missed it....You're a nut, then.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 4:29pm
It is time for a third party. I think that a new party that uses non-traditional media to get their message heard can circumvent the Washington cabal. More and more I am convinced that the only hope for this country is to pass campaign finance reform that limits contributions from PACs and corporations to the same amount that individuals are limited. You can't buy much influence with that small amount. That may explain why Washington doesn't listen to the people. They are paid to only listen to those that provide the finances, PACs and corporations. These special interests have bought themselves the best government that money can buy. Unfortunately, it seems that Washington looks upon the citizenry with contempt. The fourth estate has abandoned its responsibilities, or perhaps they also share in this contempt. One shouldn't make light of the citizen's culpability either. Wake up people! Learn your history! Our government has become the antithesis of its intended purpose. Instead of ensuring our freedoms it has sold them to the highest bidder. Tyranny is already in place. Will you do something about it? We get the government we deserve. What kind of government is justified for cowards?

Posted by Rational at 05/26/2007 @ 4:35pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/26/2007 @ 5:05pm

LVLIB, do you truly buy into anything thrown at you by Bush and Pat Robertson....and remain ignorant of anything else said or documented about Iraq?

What percentage of the attacks we are facing come from Al Queda, and what percent come for IRAQI SUNNIS going after us for propping up a Shiia-dominated government?

What do we kill 10 Iraqi Sunnis for every 1 Al Queda, if that?

As someone else noted, Al Queda WORLD-WIDE is smaller than the US Mafia was at its hey-day and the places where they had their GREATEST hide-out...Afghanistan...has been abandoned by Bush and is reverting back to its Taliban controllers outside of Kabul.

Meanwhile we kill and GET KILLED by Iraqi Sunnis who have little relationship with AQ (except "enemy of my enemy") and will NOT stop as long as we stay in THEIR country and keep their enemies in power.

But, as I always say...cheer up...you're winning (70% of America and actually 100% of America eventually are losing)...but you and the 30% Crowd are getting everything you want from the "defeatist Dems"....and when we FINALLY do get out of that quicksand in Iraq ...likely in 2009....you'll get to blame the loss on Hillary, and claim that "Dubya was winning in 2008...we were down to 4 market bombings a week from 6 market bombings a week!"

I have hope though...that the 70% won't buy that line of crap then, as they don't now.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 5:40pm
....we kill and GET KILLED by Iraqi Sunnis....and will NOT stop as long as we stay in THEIR country and keep their enemies in power.

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 5:40pm

As I'd said, Iraqi Sunnis have been the BIG disappointment...and IMO, the largest single factor in our Iraq struggles. Their deadly persistence, in the early stage, surely prearranged w/huge sums of cash Saddam seeded before he found his hole-in-the-ground, was NOT anticipated; certainly not for 4 years! Their resistance gave the Shiites time to organize and set up their power structures and militias.

Your opine they kill our soldiers to "keep their enemies in power", this does seem reasonable. Now, let me ask you: IF we withdraw, will these same enemies fall from power? IF so, by what means? Becasue then the insurgents can concentrate just on the Iraqi Army and the Shiite militias?

It seems to me in Iraq, there are so many factors at play, far more than battles of old between communism vs. capitalism, that no one knows what is going on in its entirety..........and I mean, NO ONE! Of couse, Iraq also has meaningful neighbors whose hands are in the cookie jar.

A definite part of me wants the Iraqi Gov't (Parliament & Prime Minister) to pull a Hillary and DISINVITE us and we can then gracefully and w/my HAPPY blessing, Cut-n-Run!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 6:22pm
"... in the California Bay Area, Gore is the leading candidate.[1] Gore also has the highest approval rating when compared to other Democratic nominees. "

The Bay Area?..You are going to have to throw that one out..it matches no one, anywhere, at any time, on anything..:)

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 6:24pm
Mask,

May I play?

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 2:58pm

A. 0 B. -8

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 6:26pm
...we kill and GET KILLED by Iraqi Sunnis who have little relationship with AQ (except "enemy of my enemy") and will NOT stop as long as we stay in THEIR country and keep their enemies in power.

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 5:40pm

You know how pissed I am w/them Sunnis...perhaps the biggest unplanned `Reality'...esp. after the first year or two where one can suppose that Saddam seeded such insurgency before going into his HOLE!

Now, tell me, if we withdrew tomorrow, "their enemies in power" is just going to resign en mass and refugee eastward?

No, Iraq is F****** complicated.....far, far more so than `Red or Dead'.....compounded by multiple meaningful neighbors (be it religion, oil, Arab/Israel baggage, shipping choke point, nuclear and other WMD, even China).

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 6:39pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 2:01pm

Blame Benedict Arnold. =)

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 6:50pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/26/2007 @ 5:05pm

Is there some reason to believe intelligence and police work won't get the job done? Is the military the appropriate tool here?

Posted by srjenkins at 05/26/2007 @ 6:54pm
MASK,

Another quickie....Next week, how many folks will be protesting the votes of Thursday night? More or less than the Stanford `standard'? They also have Memorial Day as a rallying prop!

Let's see, 70% of 300 million = 210 million; That's the base population for you to guess from!

Posted by Happy at 05/26/2007 @ 6:56pm
U. S. ATTORNEYS

Fewer candidates apply for positions as U.S. attorneys

By Margaret Talev, Marisa Taylor and Lesley Clark McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys last year has created a new problem for the White House: The controversy appears to be discouraging applications for some of the 22 prosecutor posts that President Bush needs to fill.

Of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, 22 are serving without Senate confirmation as interim or acting prosecutors. They represent districts in Alaska, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, West Virginia and Washington.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration is committed to nominating candidates for all 22 open positions, but so far the administration has submitted only four nominees.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 7:27pm
Close, but just missed it....You're a nut, then.

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 4:29pm

Masky (tm) if you're basing Gore not running strickly on funding-- then you're the NUT:

'Al Gore for president', says Steve Jobs

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is trying to convince Gore to run for US president

Jonny Evans, Wednesday, 23 May 2007

Apple board member and former US vice president Al Gore would win the presidency if he ran for election, says Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

"If he ran, there's no question in my mind that he would be elected," Jobs told Time Magazine. "But I think there's a question in his mind, perhaps because the pain of the last election runs a lot deeper than he lets most of us see."

The report explains the background Gore's strenuous campaigning to persuade people to address the growing threat of climate-change caused environmental collapse.

"We have dug ourselves into a 20-foot hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder. Al's the guy," Jobs also told Newsweek. "Like many others, I have tried my best to convince him. So far, no luck."

http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?newsid=18104

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 7:30pm
Oh Masky, Gore's got plenty of funding to run for president, always has, it's a matter of 'when'.

"Among those said to be pushing Mr. Gore are billionaire venture capitalist and high-tech entrepreneur John Doerr and Laurie David, a global-warming activist and producer of the film, and wife of 'Seinfeld' and 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' creator Larry David."

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/05/ wall-street-journal-al-gore-might-run.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 8:13pm
You know how pissed I am w/them Sunnis...perhaps the biggest unplanned `Reality'...esp. after the first year or two where one can suppose that Saddam seeded such insurgency before going into his HOLE!

you completely misunderstand the nature of dictatorial regime of the baath party. Saddam was easily replaced. the resistance is the war. that shock and awe was a pyrrhic victory. by siding against the baathists militarily we make it impossible for reconciliation.I am not suggesting reconciliation will break out when we leave.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/26/2007 @ 8:19pm
And not that he'll actually fund Gore, (weirder things have happened), but to Gore credibility as a candidate:

"People talk about Al Gore being a presidential candidate a lot more seriously than joking about me. This guy could be a presidential candidate," Bloomberg said. "He certainly has experience ... and I hope Al Gore enters the race. I think that would be good for the country."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ ny-bc-ny--gore-bloomberg0425apr25,0,5607601.story

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 8:22pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/26/2007 @ 6:26pm

Always a POSSIBILITY, JOHN....so, it's "1" and "1".

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 9:02pm
Yep, the date I was looking for-- it looks about right, Gore's got until Oct/Nov that was what I was thinking and which coincides with the impeachment timeline:

Gore no more the bore

The once bland ex-U.S. vice-president has morphed into a cultural hero amid calls to try again for America's top job

Feb 17, 2007 04:30 AM Tim Harper

WASHINGTON–Travel this country 11 months out from the 2008 presidential primaries and a reporter hears the same three questions from cabbies, hotel receptionists and strangers in airport bars.

"So, whaddya think about Obama?"

"Do you think Hillary could actually win?"

"Do you think Al Gore will run?"

In many ways, the third query is the most intriguing

The reluctant candidate went up three points in a USA Today/CNN poll of potential Democratic nominees this week and is really the only person in either mainstream party who can afford to bide his or her time and enter at a point of his choosing.

He has the money.

By some inside estimates within the Democratic party he could likely raise $200 million (U.S.) over the Internet.

Failing that, he has a personal fortune to fall back on.

He will readily assemble a campaign, and right now he is riding a wave of adulation which is giving him far more positive coverage than any politician could glean from a weekend of town hall meetings in Iowa.

"Al Gore could enter the race tomorrow, September or November," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, his 2000 campaign manager.

"Anything after November would be a mistake. A lot of candidates got in early for name recognition, or because they need the time to raise money.

"And some of these people are going to burn out by next September.

"Al Gore is a much different man than he was in 2000. He has the credibility and the stature.

"He has become a cultural hero."

http://www.thestar.com/Article/182861

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 9:06pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/26/2007 @ 6:56pm

Happ, first, let me be clear. We pull out of Iraq tomorrow, semi by September 2008 (as is now rumored Bush will), or under the Hillary Admin....things will not improve but get worse. UNLESS a negotiated settlement occurs between ALL Shiia and Sunni parties....but that is NOT going to happen while WE're there.

Right now, I want to save US lives and US financial security...and "stay the course/Surge/can't leave until victory" won't do that...nor will a "moderate" plan for no pull-out until late 2008.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 9:09pm
okay, HSUB....how about same time-table, same bet?

You MUST admit that Gore would HAVE to announce by late October...

14 January, 2008 Iowa caucus

19 January, 2008 Nevada caucus

22 January, 2008 New Hampshire primary

29 January, 2008 South Carolina primary

29 January, 2008 Florida

He can't start from scratch, less than three months from the beginning of the primaries....yes?

I mean you HAVE to have SOME kind of organization, plus getting yourself into debates...onto ballots....state chairmen, etc.

So....same deal. No "Gore in '08" campaign by Halloween (same as impeachment bills voted out of the House)....

you admit you were a nut....hehe

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 9:19pm
BTW, how long after Gore announces....does Hillary release the FINANCIAL records of that "carbon credit" company that Al buys off his luxury life-style from....

and who founded it and who owns stock in it????

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2007 @ 9:20pm
Frank, you're right of course.

I took off on a Gore tangent.

But as for helping to get troops home or at least in a better rotation situation with the equipment and training they need and not in a Iraqi civil war, I think the best strategy is to work at impeaching the hsuB admin. Exposure of the corruption via congressional oversight can only help, hsuB just isn't rational about protecting our troops. Unfortunately the repub base are still for Iraq occupation and thus a big majority of the congressional repubs are stuck there. They'll move with dems on corruption though. That's the crack in the hsuB blind spot that will allow hsuB to back down on increasing the number of troops even higher and getting more dead.

I hope our troops are always vigilant but are able to stop combat missions for Memorial Day.

My neighbor has two in the millitary. One in Iraq on indefinite tour..., his only daughter. She was supposed to be home like now for a year. I haven't seen him outside in days. One of the last times he was mowing his yard and crying. He had just got informed she was having to stay indefinitely. My stomach gets in a knot every time I think about it.

My thoughts go to all our troops and their sacrefices and to their families and friends sadness for their extented separation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 9:40pm
Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 9:20pm

See all the tell-all Hillary books coming out? Don't you think everybody is already gunning for Hillary? Why would she waste her time on Gore when she has 10 other attackers to deal with. Nope, whether Gore throws his hat into the ring is Hillary's last worry-- she'll cross that bridge when she gets to it. Plus she's the one with the highest negatives, you think she'll risk be exposed as a swiftboater especially to Gore, ouch that would be a major mistake. She has to take the moral high ground and hope Bill doesn't divorce her in the process. As close as Bill is to the hsuB family, Gore is going to be looking even better than a continuation of a Clinton/hsuB legacy especially in a couple of months.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 9:54pm
Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 9:20pm

See all the tell-all Hillary books coming out? Don't you think everybody is already gunning for Hillary? Why would she waste her time on Gore when she has 10 other attackers to deal with. Nope, whether Gore throws his hat into the ring is Hillary's last worry-- she'll cross that bridge when she gets to it. Plus she's the one with the highest negatives, you think she'll risk be exposed as a swiftboater especially to Gore, ouch that would be a major mistake. She has to take the moral high ground and hope Bill doesn't divorce her in the process. As close as Bill is to the hsuB family, Gore is going to be looking even better than a continuation of a Clinton/hsuB legacy especially in a couple of months.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 9:56pm
Oops. I double clicked. Bad computer.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 9:57pm
you admit you were a nut....hehe

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 9:19pm

If I were speculating on an impossibility yes, but I am not-- and as I've already posted, a lot of very prominent progressive dem/repub bilionaires concur.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:04pm
The BBC reported today that a key provision of the funding bill that Bush signed was that continued U.S. support of the civil war is dependent on Iraqi capitulation to U.S./International control of Iraqi oil assets. Why are the Brits the only reporters who happened to notice this? Why on Earth would Iraqis consent to this, and why wouldn't it make them detest us more than they already do?

Posted by Whatsgoing on at 05/26/2007 @ 10:10pm
He can't start from scratch, less than three months from the beginning of the primaries....yes?

Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 9:19pm

That's my whole point and that of the experts-- Gore is the only one that isn't starting any where close to scratch. It's like he's got the 'car' already, he just has to get into it, turn the key and floor it. (Of course I'm speaking of an alternative fuel running vehicle...)

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 10:13pm
Gore the last 3-4 months by state polling and he's not even campaigning and doing better than everybody else other than the 3 front-runners:

Alabama________11-8.5%

Arizona_________13.5-17%

California________25%

Connecticut______9-13%

Florida________________7-15%

Georgia_________11%

Iowa____________________7%

Massachusetts____13%

Michigan_________7-6%

Nevada_________________11-9%

New Hampshire___________8-15%

New Jersy_______11-6.5%

New York_______14-12%

Ohio__________12.5-10%

Oklahoma______9%

Oregan________4%

Pennsylvania___11-14.5%

S.Carolina______________10%

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Al-Gore.html

And the latest Diageo/Hotline national poll (5/24/07), has Gore at 13% overtaking Edwards at 10%; Clinton at 31% and Obama at 21 % and everyone else in single digits.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/26/2007 @ 11:06pm
ALGoare run or entering the race would be a GODSEND for the conservatives.

I can see the campaign commercials with ALGORE selling indulgences from a row boat to the little people...

Posted by john maasch at 05/26/2007 @ 11:44pm
But they're going to do it anyway:

The World

A Handful of Soldiers, on Patrol

By DAMIEN CAVE Published: May 27, 2007 MAHMUDIYA, Iraq

STANDING watch in a concrete guard tower at a small base east of Mahmudiya, Pfc. Freddy Pineda pointed to a tower in the distance.

"That one is pretty scary," he said of the outpost. "It's pretty open to the town."

Seconds later, a rocket whistled through the sky and exploded over the distant tower.

Military battle positions have sprung up here in the farmland of the Sunni Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad. Manned in many cases by only a handful of soldiers, the battle positions play a dual role: they are a base for efforts to stop insurgents from placing roadside bombs, and they represent a more dangerous new tactic in Gen. David H. Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan, which emphasizes pushing soldiers out of safer large bases and into communities.

But military officials acknowledge that this new dispersal strategy is risky. Their forces, they say, are not numerous enough to control the entire area. And insurgents have begun adjusting to the new American strategy with deadly sophistication, coordinating complex assaults on isolated troops and placing explosives where foot patrols will likely cross. In many ways, the soldiers' experiences at these outposts demonstrate how every new American tactic provokes an equally new and deadly response.

"The practice of spreading U.S. forces thinly across large areas and locating them in isolated outposts is a recipe for disaster," said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute. "It will increase the number of American casualties by depriving U.S. forces of the advantages associated with mass and firepower."

Over all, the Second Brigade has lost 42 soldiers to combat since September, putting it on pace to surpass the number of soldiers killed in attacks, 48, during the year before the unit took over. Commanders acknowledge that the move to smaller bases will continue to exact a precious human toll.

Earlier this month, Maj. Gen. Richard Lynch, commander of multinational division center, which includes the second brigade, said, "As we have surged, we find the enemy surging as well."

And, he added, "as we continue to put our forces in areas in which they have never operated, we can expect continued casualties."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/ 27cave.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 12:39am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/26/2007 @ 10:13pm

HSUB, you don't just "decide to run for President" in October 2007, with the first primary in ten weeks (mid-January). Staffs, campaign HQs, e-mail lists, even the SIGNS for yards....don't just "appear"!

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2007 @ 06:47am
The MICC is not an equal opportunity employer.

It should be apparent to nearly everyone that our economy, our standards of living and our continued consumption of a lion's share of everything the world has to offer is dependent on oil. Everything we have is also dependent on our military might. Might might not make right, but it does determine who eats and who starves, who lives and who dies. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is, whether we agree with it or not.

Military might has always determined who wins and who loses, and barring an incredible change in human nature, that's the way it will be until we destroy ourselves. We are a predator species, and not even God has been able to change us. That said, and accepted as reality, we can still create a more egalitarian society than the one we have now.

Throughout history, there has been a sharp divide between those who profit from war and those who sacrifice their lives in war. The elite few who instigate wars, and profit from them, don't ordinarily die unless their country becomes a battlefield; only the troops they send to war suffer and die. Hence our rulers preference for tidy little contained wars overseas, which are good for the them, but not for our troops or the people whose country we attack.

Since our economy, our standards of living and our continued consumption of a lion's share of everything the world has to offer is dependent on military might, it seems only fair that our warriors be reasonably compensated for their sacrifice. The Military, Industrial, Congressional Complex is not an equal opportunity employer. Our warriors, who come primarily from the poorer classes, should be paid at least a hundred thousand dollars a year. That would create a more egalitarian society.

.

Posted by rabblerowzer at 05/27/2007 @ 08:58am
You don't win them all and the Democrats certainly lost this battle, I agree with Mr DC that the Democrats never should have started down a path they knew they wouldnt finish. Once they started attaching conditions to the funding they should have finished it. On the other hand, The Disaster in Iraq is WRONG for American security, The Disaster in Iraq is WRONG morally, The Disaster in Iraq is WRONG to our Treasury and to the Americans George Bush slaughters based on his lies.

The Democratic Party is going to survive and hopefully it is stronger because of the ass-kicking that Liberal Democrats should give them. When are Liberals going to be listened to? Liberals were RIGHT about Iraq from the beginning, Liberals were RIGHT about Bush from the beginning, Liberals are geniuses. Conservatives are WRONG about Iraq, Conservatives are WRONG about Bush. Conservatives are idiots. So the Democratic Party ought to listen more to it's geniuses and less to it's idiots.

The Big Idiot, George Bush, said yesterday, "Expect Iraq to get worse, Expect even more Americans to be slaughtered in Iraq than ever before, it's part of progress, the Iraqis are getting desperate because they don't want America to succeed..."

Posted by conshame at 05/27/2007 @ 10:53am
.....Saddam was easily replaced. the resistance is the war.....by siding against the baathists militarily we make it impossible for reconciliation.I am not suggesting reconciliation will break out when we leave.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/26/2007 @ 8:19pm

Disagree about Saddam! But, the money for the "resistance is the war" part, can and probably has been (easily) replaced. IMO, AQ primarily kills/fights for ideology and to create chaos & sectarian divisions but the baathists insurgents are likely paid to fight/kill....it certainly is a dark side of Iraq's `economy'.

Your comment on "siding against the baathists" is rather off the wall....What would you have done, once we are rumbling into Iraq? Wave white flags as Ted Kopppel led the way? It wasn't AQ or the Shiites that were putting up the (minor) resistance, wasn't it some of the Republican Guards and the Fedayeens?

Reading SR's more articulate comments, it is pretty clear your side don't have any more coherent `solutions' than what I or Ponti can muster. Feingold's `strategy' is pure and unadulterated BS! The votes of 3 nights ago show nobody, not even the `BEST' 500 or so Americans, knows for sure what exactly are the OPTIMAL steps to take.

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2007 @ 12:03pm
Ha'p sounds unHa'p. Sounds a lot like a desperate insecure 15 year old. The far right new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tators, consider their skewed view of the world as common! They are so self-isolated-- they're unable to understand themselves as so anti-social to the point of being sociopathic, they then twist language to mean what it doesn't in order to believe their own BS.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 12:29pm
Staffs, campaign HQs, e-mail lists, even the SIGNS for yards....don't just "appear"!

Posted by MASK 05/27/2007 @ 06:47am

Er, you think there's no Gore machine already out there? Oh duh, you're the one that's naive then. And signs take a couple of weeks to create and put out... Gore already has name recognition-- doesn't need much advertising at all. And there's tons of real state out there for HQ space apart from the trigabytes of cyberspace accessible to Gore in a second. I keep telling you these are not the deciding factors for Gore deciding to run by Oct/Nov, if not before. He has all the funding necessary to run and he already sees the big picture, has the machine and key. It's all about if he can truly convince himself he wouldn't be running for just his own ego, but that he truly believes he can make a 'bigger' difference if he's president than not-- that is the question he's grappling with. He already knows it'll be a headache either way. It's as simple and as complex as that. Really.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/27/2007 @ 12:01am

Interesting how AP only seems concerned about soldiers killed in Iraq, isn't it?

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/27/2007 @ 01:03am

Everyone should pick up a copy of this weeks Time magazine and read the story of six of our troops who gave their lives in Iraq and how their families are dealing with it. Most people won't because they really don't want to hear it but they should anyway and then imagine that it's their kid.

Funny how the US media only reports on the negative aspects of the Iraq War. Again, note how Time magazine ignores the families of those killed in Afghanistan. I guess that just doesn't fit the agenda, now does it?

Nobody outside of the left trusts the MSM because everyone knows it's left-biased, that's why most MSM outlets are going down the toilet. Good riddance to them, I say.

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/27/2007 @ 12:01am

Interesting how AP only seems concerned about soldiers killed in Iraq, isn't it?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007

Pon,

I suppose you'd like more coverage of the fun stuff like more details on torture, sectarian violence, shitty living conditions, missing oil and funds,... Might I suggest you take a vacation there and report back to us on all the good fun you had there.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 1:24pm
Er, you think there's no Gore machine already out there?---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/27/2007 @ 12:52pm

Er, no, there isn't. If there were, we'd see it in the news, especially the way Washington leaks like a sieve and the way EGOs operate in campaigns....Donna Brazile (who you quoted) would spill the beans, if to get back for not being part of it...or because she IS part of it and wants the camera-time.

Find it, HSUB....find the "Gore machine". Who's in it? One celebrity? That doesn't create a staff that has to work the precincts in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. How much money could Gore raise in ten weeks? He'd need a minimum of TEN MILLION to keep up with HRC, Obama and Edwards...that's a MILLION a WEEK!

"He has all the funding necessary to run and he already sees the big picture."---HSUB

WHERE? You have to DECLARE campaign contributions or violate Federal election law...or is Gore ABOVE the law now?

This is a dream, HSUB. I think you know it...it's FUN to think about, fantasize about, etc. But, cold, hard reality is still there, my friend.

Seriously, impeachment has a better shot! And you'll find that both collapse at Halloween.

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/27/2007 @ 1:24pm

Perhaps you can tell me why the media only focuses on war casualties in Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan?

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:32pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:32pm

Here's a hint: dead soldiers in Afghanistan don't fit the agenda.

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:39pm
"Ha'p sounds unHa'p. Sounds a lot like a desperate insecure 15 year old. The far right new con 'supporters', servicers of dic'tators, consider their skewed view of the world as common! They are so self-isolated-- they're unable to understand themselves as so anti-social to the point of being sociopathic, they then twist language to mean what it doesn't in order to believe their own BS."

*****

Sounds like you hit the nail on the head.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 05/27/2007 @ 1:44pm
Perhaps you can tell me why the media only focuses on war casualties in Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:32pm

Well it does look a little skewed 2.5:1 there Pon:

Google Results 1 - 10 of about 57,300,000 for War in Afghanistan. (0.21 seconds)

Google Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000,000 for War in Iraq. (0.16 seconds)

But then so does this:

US Troops Dead in Afghanistan

+ 2007 33

+ 2006 98

+ 2005 99

+ 2004 52

+ 2003 48

+ 2002 48

+ 2001 12

Total__390

US Troops Dead in Iraq

Mar-03 65

Apr-03 74

May-03 37

Jun-03 30

Jul-03 48

Aug-03 35

Sep-03 31

Oct-03 44

Nov-03 82

Dec-03 40

Jan-04 47

Feb-04 20

Mar-04 52

Apr-04 135

May-04 80

Jun-04 42

Jul-04 54

Aug-04 66

Sep-04 80

Oct-04 64

Nov-04 137

Dec-04 72

Jan-05 107

Feb-05 58

Mar-05 35

Apr-05 52

May-05 80

Jun-05 78

Jul-05 54

Aug-05 85

Sep-05 49

Oct-05 96

Nov-05 84

Dec-05 68

Jan-06 62

Feb-06 55

Mar-06 31

Apr-06 76

May-06 69

Jun-06 61

Jul-06 43

Aug-06 65

Sep-06 72

Oct-06 106

Nov-06 70

Dec-06 112

Jan-07 83

Feb-07 80

Mar-07 81

Apr-07 104

May-07 103

Total 3454

Given this skew, there should be at least 12 times more coverage about our occupation in Iraq, I'd think.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 05/27/2007 @ 1:44pm

Except when you realize that this description is more applicable to those individuals on the fringe left, as represented by The Nation, whichs is about 1/6 (at most) of the country - as opposed to the 1/2 the country that voted for George Bush. When you further stipulate that almost all leftists live in metropolitan areas, you realize just what a minor segment of the US demographic they actually represent.

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/27/2007 @ 1:50pm

Your stats aren't representative of lead news stories like the one in Time. Almost all major news media outlets lead with stories about casualties in Iraq - just like Al Quaida wants them to.

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:53pm
In fact, I call it a symbiotic relationship. Certainly Al Quaida counts on major news coverage for car bombs and civilian slaughters in Iraq, it's practically the only reason why Al Quaida even bothers to mount these types of attacks - it suits their political purposes, and yours.

Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2007 @ 1:56pm
1/2 the country that voted for George Bush.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:51pm

You need to learn to count, 1/2 of half means less than 1/4 of the country voted for hsuB and even then, hsuB, like most new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, used self-deceptive language to state his goals and policies to a trusting public.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
Your stats aren't representative of lead news stories like the one in Time.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:53pm

I guess then that makes up for the 12 times more coverage Iraq should be getting.

And given AQ is based in Afghanistan bordering within Pakistan, I'd say news about Iraq occupation is playing more into hsuB's hand of not going after AQ... Or you saying that hsuB and Al Qeada/OBL are partnering up?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 2:04pm
Sounds like you hit the nail on the head.

Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 05/27/2007 @ 1:44pm

Still no original thoughts, heh?

Posted by Happy at 05/27/2007 @ 2:05pm
Still no original thoughts, heh?

Posted by HAPPY 05/27/2007 @ 2:05pm

So you already know you're an isolated sociopathic new con 'supporter', servicer of dic'tator philosophy using self-deceptive language. Ok, if you say so.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 2:11pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:56pm

I love the major media is liberal mentality. Let's attack PBS rather than substantive points of Buying the War. Key point: some reporters did debunk the whold WMD argument before the war started - but major media didn't report it. You were talking about "suits their political purposes"? But, let's not let inconvenient facts into the discussion.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/index.html

Want another example? Let's take MASK's comment about Venezuela - since it is top of mind for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/americas/27venez.html http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

Major media spins it that it is a censorship issue and fails to point out the station was involved in a coup attempt.

Love how the role of advertisers have over what gets on and stays on the air gets completely lost in this discussion - why is imus gone again? Or the fact that these are corporations - perhaps war is bad for business? But, let's go with the easy out - blame all the liberals in league with AQ. Brilliant!

Posted by srjenkins at 05/27/2007 @ 2:39pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:56pm

More dreamland imagining. Tell us, oh wise one, what percentage of attacks in iraq are perpetrated by "Al Qaeda". Of that percentage, how many people were not "Al Qaeda " members before our invasion of Iraq?

didn't Libby get convicted? Were you not sure the whole trial was about nothing? Didn't you think saddam had wmd's and connections to Al Qaeda? Were you not sure the mission was accomlished in 05?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/27/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2007 @ 1:32pm

Here's a hint, there are far fewer troops in Afghanistan and you can only conduct operations during particular months.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/afghanistan/

I count 33 dead this year in Afghanistan from this site. More than twice that died this month in Iraq. But it's a vast liberal media conspiracy - rather than coverage represenatative of the loss involved. But again, let's not bother with the facts - sophistry is more fun!

Posted by srjenkins at 05/27/2007 @ 2:45pm
Oh, right. It's all the lib medias fault. Just like the 72% of republican appointed judges are liberal activists.

Repeat lies enough on Hannity, and one produces a whole flock of sheep like PONTI and RIO-KORESH

Look at Cheney at West Point. Still spewing lies. Because PONTI still listens.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/27/2007 @ 2:47pm
Maybe PONTI would rather read about the libertarian regulation in Iraq, and how that is spreading enterprises and democracy throughout the ME.

Maybe, just maybe, the news out if Iraq is bad because Iraq is a hellhole, failed state and hideout for terrorists.

Nah, its dreamland. The lib media just won't tell us because they hate America.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/27/2007 @ 2:51pm
With all the concern for our troops-- why are reports about the debilitating health issues concerning 'DU', depleted uranium, few to none being reported by either the US liberal or conservative major media, but mostly by BBC/UK or European outlets? MIC control of our media? Most definitely.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/special/uranium/

Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness - US Army Training Video

Misstates that gasmasks and even a handkerchief can filter out the radioactive micro dust. Never mentions DU hazards of dust storms. Treats contamination with less severity than most all wounds and doesn't discuss long term effects to health...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U93PBZIyqBs

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 3:19pm
Seriously, impeachment has a better shot! And you'll find that both collapse at Halloween.

Posted by MASK 05/27/2007 @ 1:30pm

So you weren't serious before? I was letting you cool off as you sounded desparate, as though you lost it, were about to self-combust or do something weird to yourself, and I do try not to make any one go crazy.

But you're wrong about this. And your points again do not apply to Gore. He doesn't have to file if the org's are to draft him or exploratory org's nonaffiliated w/him as he hasn't decided yet. He's a self-made millionare and can easily self-finance if he chose to, plus if there aren't matching funds, know how many billionares want to just give him a couple of hundred million to run? You might have to also use your feet to count. Again, it's not illegal if you haven't decided to run and it's totally another group, nonaffiliated to Gore, that's doing the mechanics, just in case Gore does decide to run. BTW it benefits Hillary in 'the short run' if Gore does throw his hat in the ring. And if Hillary's poll numbers dip below a certain number, lets say 29-25%, Gore is a lot more apt to say yes.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 4:19pm
Giuliani leads in key 2008 states, Gore shows strong: poll AFP

Friday, April 27, 2007 00:56 IST

WASHINGTON: Republican Rudolph Giuliani is favoured over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for the US presidency in three key electoral states, while ex-vice president Al Gore might be the Democrats strongest choice for 2008, a new poll showed on Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll showed that former New York mayor Giuliani, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination, would beat Democrat Senator Clinton solidly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The three populous states are seen as crucial swing states in any election, with their voters never clearly in the Republican or Democrat camp.

In Florida, Giuliani topped Clinton -- the wife of former president Bill Clinton -- 49-41 per cent; in Ohio 46-41 per cent, and in Pennsylvania 47-43 per cent.

However, the Quinnipiac numbers showed that non-candidate Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush in a controversial Florida showdown, could do better than Clinton against Giuliani in those states. Giuliani led the now-global warming activist 47-43 per cent in Florida and the two were tied at 44 per cent each in Pennsylvania.

But Gore trailed Giuliani in Ohio much more, with the poll 47-39 per cent for the Republican.

"Mayor Rudoph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1093187

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 4:32pm
Poll: Many would like Al Gore, Condoleezza Rice to run

By JONATHAN ROOS REGISTER STAFF WRITER

Copyright 2007, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

May 19, 2007

Al Gore, many Iowa Democrats want you to join the presidential race.

Forty-four percent of likely Democratic caucus participants say they'd like to see the race include Gore, the former vice president who lost by a whisker to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.

Gore said last week he has "fallen out of love with politics" but has not completely ruled out running again.

Twenty-three percent want Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' nominee in 2004, to run again, and 20 percent would like retired General Wesley Clark to join the field.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519030/1001

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 4:37pm
The world according to "Pointy Ficus":

1:51pm Pointy says: "as opposed to the 1/2 the country that voted for George Bush"

Rebuttal: Actually about 1/4 of the country's voting age population voted for the Gimp ( less than 1/4 in 2000, slightly greater than 1/4 in 2004).

1:53pm Pointy says: "Almost all major news media outlets lead with stories about casualties in Iraq"

Rebuttal: Our 'major media' don't lead specifically with 'stories about caualties' most of the time, and more importantly the stories that refer to casualty counts are without proper context or even accuracy. For example, there are still no mention of contractor casualties (upwards of 900-1000 dead and thousands more wounded) and the wildly low wounded tallies (we know the ratio of wounded to dead is approx. 1:10 which give a realistic total wounded number of ~35,000).

1:56pm Pointy says: "Certainly Al Quaida counts on major news coverage for car bombs and civilian slaughters in Iraq, it's practically the only reason why Al Quaida even bothers to mount these types of attacks - it suits their political purposes, and yours."

Rebuttal: First, "Al-Qaeda" is more a construct of US propaganda than a real, top-down, sleeper cell possessing agency. Anyone with a high speed internet connection can watch the critically acclaimed BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" online --it's "too hot" for wider US distrubution i.e. it's too upsetting to our corporate 'major media'-- which nicely and clearly explains the intertwined history of 'our' neocons and 'their' Al-Qaeda. Second, you are 'correct' in an unintended way; the interests of, until now largely powerless and disparate, terrorist organizations are served as well as the interests of our domestic terrorists, the neocons, by this unconsciounably and monumentally stupid war which is doing a fantastic job of creating that which it ostensibly condemns, that is: a cauldron of spiralling instability.

In a slightly more just world, stellar idiots such as the Pointy Headed One would be cast into an isolated colony of their peers and left to struggle for their survival instead of the current case where they instead get "elected president".

Have a nice Memorial Day Pungent Fungus, you bearer of putrid, pusillanimous portents.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/27/2007 @ 4:43pm
Fer sure, if that makes sense to you.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 05/27/2007 @ 5:20pm
Yes Madlib, it goes without saying that we don't give a rat's ass about the actual well being of the people we "liberated".....or did we really mean "liquidated"?

Nor does it matter much that 2 million Iraqis (the lucky ones) have left the country and another 2 million are displaced within the country (out of a prewar pop. of 26 million)--thanks Katrina. A comparable percentage of displaced citizens in America would extrapolate to 45 million displaced.

But it's okay, it'll all be worth it when we finally force the Iraqi 'government' to sign off on that Hydrocarbon Law that hands off their multi-trillion dollar oil reserves to a cabal of multinational oil companies.

They'll need the trillions to build their glass bubble colonies enabling their survival after the global devastation wreaked from the burning of their prize.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/27/2007 @ 5:29pm
Oh, I even bought the casualty lie myself (above post).

The US dead: ~4,500 (includes contractors)

The US wounded: ~45,000 (includes contractors)

The Iraqi dead and wounded: ~Well over a million (conservatively)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/27/2007 @ 5:38pm
They need to extend extraordinay help to us today, as some (perhaps many) sheiks seem to be doing in banding together to cut AQ down in size....to help steady our support while we see if the Shiites have any redeeming values to work toward democracy for ALL Iraqi citizens. I don't know that it will happen but we must try; unless, as Bush/I said, if Iraqi democracy asks us to leave, we ought to leave.

Posted by HAPPY 05/25/2007 @ 1:18pm

ARE YOU HAPPY?...

Well, Snow White is looking for you, because you are definitely living in a mental fairy tail. Get real (please).

Posted by w_m_bear at 05/27/2007 @ 5:58pm
Hey Masky this is all legal since Al Gore has said that he's not 'planning' on running:

http://www.algore.org/get_involved/ gore_groups/city?filter0=78681

XXXXxxxxXXXxXXXXXXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxx

Poll

If Gore got in, how much would you immediately donate?

nothing, not worth it to me 18% 556 votes

less than $50 14% 418 votes (20K)

$50-99 18% 546 votes (50K)

$100-200 27% 803 votes (160K)

$200-500 11% 318 votes (150K)

$500-1000 4% 116 votes (116K)

$1000-2000 1% 37 votes (70K)

the maximum, $2300 7% 225 votes (517K)

3019 votes

Er, got a calculator? Not that he's going to need it, but isn't that a million dollars like just to say yes in the first minute on one obscure site?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/ 4/22/82446/9752

XXXxxxxXXXxxxXXXXXXXxxxxXXXxxXxx

These are fun too:

http://www.pollster.com/ATopDems.png

http://www.2008horserace.com/

http://www.mass4gore.com/2008/RunAlRun.mp3

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 6:01pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/27/2007 @ 5:38pm

Yeah, the numbers are always going to be off by a few hundred or a few thousand or a few million give or take whether we count the depleted uranium deaths or not. I've been posting info about DU for a couple of years now and still it seems few are seeing the increasing death rate from the first Iraq excursion or Afghanistan, in the news. I suppose they'd have to totally re-arm our troops in Iraq, which they can't/won't, just have to withdraw, if it got out in a big way how deadly the DU was and taken seriously. Not to mention world opinion about hsuB's WMD use getting the world court seriously considered.

BTW our numbers on the ground in Iraq are slowly rivalling Vietnam if you take the merc numbers into account. The number of US troop deaths in Iraq, if hsuB/cHeney aren't stopped soon, will also begin to rival Vietnam's. And it will be as pointless an occupation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 6:21pm
Comparison Study

Vietnam Troop Levels (T L) _$_______Iraq War_____

Year___US TL___US Dead _$_Year_US Dead__US T L

1965__184,300___*1,594__$_2006__*3000__140,000

1966 _385,300___ 6,053__$_2007__14,829__170,000

1967__485,600___11,058__$_2008 _27,731 _200,000

1968__536,100___16,511__$_2009__42,983__210,000

1969__475,200___11,527__$_2010__30,088__200,000

1970__334,600____6,065__$_2011__15,645__150,000

1971__156,800____2,348__$_2012___5,476__120,000

1972___24,200_____ 561__$_2013___1,314__100,000

* total of previous years up until then

Iraq US T L does not include US financed contractor/merc's, thus add on another 150-200K to US total; consider substancially increasing merc numbers as well per serge.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/27/2007 @ 6:39pm
.What would you have done,

I would never have invaded Iraq. kind of like Bush1.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/27/2007 @ 7:28pm
know how many billionares want to just give him a couple of hundred million to run? You might have to also use your feet to count. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/27/2007 @ 4:19pm

HSUB, facts and logic and the concept of TIME apparently have no effect on this little fantasy of yours, but I'll try one last fact to see if you can rationalize it away...

Cool...those "billionaires" want to back Gore...great. How much can an INDIVIDUAL American citizen (billionaire or hobo) donate to a Presidential candidate.

Are there enough billionaires to cover all Gore's expenses?...feel free to remove your socks.

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2007 @ 9:00pm
As to be expected; you don't have an answer for where to fight AQ

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/27/2007 @ 4:39pm

Well, how about we fight them where they WERE first? How about we go to where they're hiding out, LVLIB? Like the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan?

Ohhhhh...that's right..."that's too tough, it's too mountainous and isolated". So, let's keep 150,000 troops in the middle of an IRAQI CIVIL WAR and claim that that 5-10% of the insurgents we kill (who are AQ) represent the problem, not the 90-95% who are IRAQI SUNNIs with no direct affiliation with Al Queda and ...

only CONSIDER leaving after Bush is out of office, so that he and those like you who are in his cult of personality can claim his successor "lost Iraq" and let poor Dubya off the hook (as well as yourselves for supporting this idiocy and callously killing 3500+ Americans and wasting 3/4 of a Trillion dollars!)

Posted by Mask at 05/27/2007 @ 9:05pm
..Snow White is looking for you, because you are definitely living in a mental fairy tail. Get real (please).

Posted by W_M_BEAR 05/27/2007 @ 5:58p

Not just Snow White, I'm sought out constantly for my fairy tail.....It's very real and very HAPPY! Hey, ma, look what I've got....and they don't! -----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would never have invaded Iraq. kind of like Bush1.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/27/2007 @ 7:28pm

Sure, you can gloat over your backward-looking prowess! LOL! Goodnight!

Posted by Happy at 05/28/2007 @ 01:09am
Are there enough billionaires to cover all Gore's expenses?...feel free to remove your socks.

Posted by MASK 05/27/2007 @ 9:00pm

Masky, I never said that Gore would be financed by 'only' billionaires. I already posted just one site that listed at least a million dollars pledged by just 500 non billionaires-- if Gore just said yes. Just one site. Last count there were at least 168 meet/planning sites across the US.

But do you know the campaign finance limit on how much a self-funded candidate can borrow from oneself? Billionaires do.

Do you know the contribution limitations/restrictions on the private financing of print (including voter guides), mass mail, phone or Internet communications is? Billioniares do.

Do you know how many millionaires billionaires know?

Did you know that the overall limit on contributions from one person is now $95,000 every two years (was $25,000 per year).

Did you know that issue ads, are now considered "electioneering communications" and may no longer be funded by corporations or labor organizations-- but billioiares can and will.

You are the one stuck in 'limitation-land', a naysaying naysayer. Hahahahah. Read up a little more.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 01:44am
Ooops, meant: I already posted just one site that listed at least a million dollars pledged by 'about 2400' non billionaires- ...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 01:51am
Okay HSUB....tried my best....

So....according to YOUR understanding, when do you predict that Gore will announce?...or more importantly, what's the LATEST date by which he can announce and still win the nomination.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 07:05am
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/27/2007 @ 2:39pm

Major media spins it that it is a censorship issue and fails to point out the station was involved in a coup attempt.

Love how the role of advertisers have over what gets on and stays on the air gets completely lost in this discussion - why is imus gone again? Or the fact that these are corporations - perhaps war is bad for business? But, let's go with the easy out - blame all the liberals in league with AQ. Brilliant!

Now you're defending quasi-Marxist dictators in shutting down opposition media in Venezuela? You're a strange kind of 'Democrat' if I may say so.

It's funny, I thought it was PEOPLE who were criminals - not organizations. If there were members of opposition media who supported a coup, seems to me they should be held liable themselves - not an entire organization. But if we follow legal rationales like this, dictators like Chavez would have no excuse to shut down opposition media stations, now would he. No matter, he can always count on boot-licking apologists for dictators, like yourself, to cover his arse, am I right?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 07:29am
Posted by SRJENKINS 05/27/2007 @ 2:39pm

Yeah, sorry, SRJ...but you're on the wrong side of this one...even among the Venezuelans (not to mention much of the journalistic world)...

"nevertheless, many individuals, international organizations and NGOs -- including the OAS's Secretary General José Miguel Insulza and its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, the Inter American Press Association, and the Committee to Protect Journalists -- have expressed concerns for freedom of the press....

According to Venezuelan poller Datanálisis, in April 2007, 13% of Venezuelans agree to deny the license to RCTV, while 70% reject the government's decision.

---wikipedia article on RCTV

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 09:29am

What is it about fringe leftists that makes them knee-jerk apologists for leftist dictators? Is it intrinsic to their values, or is it just political expediency? Or both?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:35am
There is much evidence to indicate that censoriousness is intrinsic to leftist values; any cursory examination of the speech codes and run-of-the-mill thuggishness prevalent on many college campuses would confirm this. Then, of course, you have the knee-jerk apoligists like SRJENKINS always ready to explain the good reasons why leftist dictators like Chavez are fully justified in shutting down opposition media.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:41am
On the other hand, The Nation website, unlike many other leftist websites, does not automatically ban posters who don't go along with the dominant left-wing orthodoxy. So I don't think it's fair to say that ALL leftists are, at heart, censorious.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:43am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:35am

Well, I don't know, PONTI.

What is it about RIGHTISTS that offer apologia for men who lecture us on "family values" and "hard time for drug users"...and have three marriages under their belt (Gingrich) or their own drug problem or BOTH (Limbaugh).....or Religious Rightists (like LVLIB) who defend fellow RRs like Pat Robertson for dealing with dictators like Charles Taylor?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 11:07am
Or how about corporate censorship? that is, the purchasing of multiple media outlets then "restructuring" the news rooms (read "gutting" the news room), Closing off access to indy music in favor of corporate pap and closing local radio stations to enable piping from a centralized location?.This leads to limiting consumer choice and less competition, which used to be a hallmark of the free marketeers.

that is censorship, but for profit. So, rather than look at what is happening at home, PONTI and the other neo-cons blather away about a country 1000's of miles away. Then there is the claim that this same corporate media is "liberal". Crock of Stimpy.

Also, would love to read a response to MASKS question. And would love to read some more apologies for our "war president" that is losing two wars while increasing Islamic Terrorism worldwide.

Then PONTI can tell us once again how Libby is innocent of being a liar.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2007 @ 11:26am
Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 5:40pm

As to be expected; you don't have an answer for where to fight AQ

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/27/2007 @ 4:39pm |

MASK, are you back on your meds, you posted two relevant posts. without resorting to made up quotes or twisted arguments.

Posted by MASK 05/27/2007 @ 9:05pm

That is your answer LUVS-ISLAMICTERRORISM. The idea is to take the fight to where the enemy is, not some other third country. You need to seriously consider why you believe Iraq is THE place to fight AQ. I think you will find you believe this because you listen to ChimpCo, a source with zero credibility.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2007 @ 11:30am
Let us remember the fallen, the ones from pat wars that died for a reason, and those from Vietnam and Vietnam II that are falling to (attempt to) make Bush a legacy.

If the world had any logic, we would not have to memorialize the fallen from OIF, because there was no good reason for OIF, just PNAC and neo-con theories and lies. All of which have been exposed, along with their complete inability to run government.

OPEN QUESTION: What should the Washington Memorial to OIF be?

A pile of dung, to represent the intelligence given by ChimpCO.?

A giant chicken, to represent the hiding behind Iraqs' women and children?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2007 @ 11:37am
Posted by CRABWALK 05/28/2007 @ 11:30am

Well, CRAB, it's easy to win you over....when I'm AGREEING with you (such as on the Iraq War)....hehe

BTW, in your case, I don't think "making up quotes" is necessary....your REAL quotes work pretty good, such as --

BLOG | Posted 03/24/2007 @ 8:54pm Edwards Stands Out On Health Care Debate Marc Cooper

NATION STAFF: how about a story on wether or not Oregons system is working? This trial ranks procedures by efficacy and cost/benefit. It leads to.. (gasp) rationing, which is what we need in some form. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system.---Posted by CRABWALK 03/25/2007 @ 05:09am

So, mind your grannies, guys....CRAB universal health care is gunnin' fer 'em!

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 12:23pm
By the way....

OPEN QUESTION: What should the Washington Memorial to OIF be?

Posted by CRABWALK 05/28/2007 @ 11:37am

You honor the soldiers...not the Commander-in-Chief. The Korean War memorial isn't a mounment to Truman or Ike...the Vietnam Memorial isn't in honor of Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 12:25pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 11:07am

What is it about RIGHTISTS that offer apologia for men who lecture us on "family values" and "hard time for drug users"...and have three marriages under their belt (Gingrich) or their own drug problem or BOTH (Limbaugh).....or Religious Rightists (like LVLIB) who defend fellow RRs like Pat Robertson for dealing with dictators like Charles Taylor?

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your point here, MASK. Are you saying that censorship is okay, because Gingrich has had three wives, and Limbaugh is abusing prescription drugs? Or are you saying it's unfair to characterize the entire left as censorious based on the widespread use of speech codes in leftist-dominated institutions (media and academia) and what I suspect are quite a few people who hold SRJENKINS views (by no means a minority here, I warrant)?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 1:13pm
Posted by CRABWALK 05/28/2007 @ 11:37am

OPEN QUESTION: What should the Washington Memorial to OIF be?

This is what it should look like. [cellar.org]

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 1:16pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 07:05am

You tried, but it would help if you weren't so wrong across the board, maybe I'd listen a little better to your arguments if something you said about this was right. Oh wait, we did agree-- Gore has got to do the annoucement to run by Oct/Nov or it gets really hard. You need to also understand how many million$ Gore is saving by waiting and his poll numbers are just going up!

As for winning Gore has already got a better chance than any in the current feild whenever he starts. Would I mind a Gore/Clinton (for the irony), or a Gore/Obama (for the future), or even a Gore/Richardson (for experience out the wazooedness), but you have to admit, when Gore enters the presidential race, the discussion will move up to an altogether better level.

Remeber this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by CRABWALK 05/28/2007 @ 11:26am

Or how about corporate censorship? that is, the purchasing of multiple media outlets then "restructuring" the news rooms (read "gutting" the news room), Closing off access to indy music in favor of corporate pap and closing local radio stations to enable piping from a centralized location?.This leads to limiting consumer choice and less competition, which used to be a hallmark of the free marketeers.

CRABBIE, you are so fucked up it's funny. You're equating market-based corporate decisionmaking with the government takeover of media stations in Venezuela? What kind of job do you have, may I ask, allowing that you have one at all? Like most leftists, I expect you are FAR FAR removed from any capacity in which you might understand the workings of wealth generation. Am I right? Or do you not even know what I'm talking about?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 1:28pm
Pon,

Er, you do know the definition of Fascism as it relates to corporations don't you?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 1:13pm

No, PONTI, I'm saying that it's not just the LEFT, who suffer from terminal bouts of hypocrisy.

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
"You need to also understand how many million$ Gore is saving by waiting...."---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 1:27pm

Okay, vampires are real and Al Gore has a good shot at the Dem nomination even if he enters on Halloween.....I'll play along...

Now, Gore has millions "waiting for him"....not just the billionaires (who can only donate $1000 per individual, BTW, was the answer, folks)...but "all the little people" who'll drop their former allegiances to Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc. like a hot potato and LEAP to send money to Gore who in a rather under-handed way...jumps into the campaign as late as he could....

1st--- So the people who've donated to HRC, Obama, Edwards...have TONS more money to lavish on Gore...or they are sitting on it waiting for Gore to enter?

If "A", then apparently it's not just the Repubs who have "wealthy donors", huh?.....if "B", and they're sitting on that cash waiting for Gore...

what if he DOESN'T run? They give it to the nominee? Okay...okay, but wait a minute, if Gore DOES enter and takes their money...that means they WON'T have it to give to the nominee (Gore in that case) for the General Election in the Fall of 2008?

Or again, is the pool of money just bottomless for ol' Al?

"He could fund himself"? Does he HAVE that much? I know he gets $200K a speaking engagement, but how much of that does he pocket himself?

But I guess (like the others) these points are moot....Gore's going to announce by Halloween and SWEEP the nomination from the others as their followers abandon them in droves and come up with previously unseen hordes of cash for ol' Al.

BTW, will he take some of those campaign funds to "buy off his carbon footprint" (lotta jet and car travel involved in primary season)....by buying "carbon credits" from his own company???

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 3:49pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 3:34pm

No, PONTI, I'm saying that it's not just the LEFT, who suffer from terminal bouts of hypocrisy.

Oh, I have no doubt that there are hypocrites on both sides. My point was, however, that on the left, it's not just hypocrisy that we're talking about, but outright misrepresentation. There is a certain segment on the left that does nothing more than pay lip service to the idea of freedom of speech, and actually it's reached far beyond hypocrisy to doublethink. FRANKGRITS, for example, at least claims he's ALL FOR freedom of speech, but he has no trouble telling you that this doesn't apply to entire classes of speech with which he disagrees. Similarly, this JENKINS fellow, I'm sure, believes he's ALL FOR freedom of speech, but not in cases, for example, where his dictator pal Chavez claims that the rules have been broken. This is far more sinister than the simple hypocrisy you see on the right; it's Orwell's doublethink in action.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 3:49p

You can rant and toss your BS at your cage all you want-- it's still all wrong or you can read up. It looks like you'd rather toss, look desparate and silly, than learn, thus remaining an ignorant on just about everything you posted. Everything I posted financing came right off of the fed updated campaign finance web site. Everyone should take a look. Masky (tm) is once again trying to misdirect just to misdirect. Why lie when it's all on-line?

http://www.fec.gov/sitemap.shtml

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml

As well Gore is saving the planet a lot less carbon by not also campaigning so early-- good point Masky-- probably the only right thing you said... hehehehheh

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 7:03pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 7:03pm

As well Gore is saving the planet a lot less carbon by not also campaigning so early-- good point Masky-- probably the only right thing you said... hehehehheh

How's Gore doing in saving the planet with his 11,000 sq ft house? How's his Gulfstream V fit into the picture? I hear he's buying fluourescent bulbs and carbon indulgences (from his own company) by the boatload, too. Maybe when he becomes Pres and mandates carbon reductions for everyone, he'll buy you some too? But then again, maybe not. You can live on his estate, maybe though, as a sharecropper.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 7:14pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 5:26pm

Foul wraith besheathed in cloak o' doom; A slither worm through ebon gloom

Pale skull be'circed in blazing thorn; Mock mercy, free the wakenin' morn

What spectre this? What blight o' man? Hey, wait a 'sec.....it's the Pointy Headed Ficus-Man!

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 7:15pm
Aye, what fine timin' I might add.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 7:16pm
I'm positive that if hot air can save the planet from global warming, Al Gore can do it. If not, we're in a heap of trouble. Unless we're not.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 7:16pm
Actually, when you think about it, the fact that the only thing Gore ever produced for sale is carbon indulgences, it kind of makes sense. Who else but a self-righteous liberal would have the nerve to produce an imaginary product to sell for real money? Kind of ironic, when you think about it.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 8:04pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 5:26pm

Well, PONTI, I'm sure as a non-hypocrite of the Right and believer in free speech....

you have no problem with flag-burning, right?

(not a direct attack, willing to grant benefit of the doubt)

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 8:31pm
scootificus.

So you have a choice between a few moments of watching your flag burning versus many terrible years of feeling the throbbing of your asshole burning.

For your country... which price will you pay?

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:38pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 8:31pm

Like immigration, flag burning is not a big issue for me. I find it offensive on one level, pathetic on another. I don't think it should be illegal. Only social conservatives want to ban flag burning, and I'm not one of them. I'm a conservative because I believe that successful economic systems empower the individual, and that proper moral conduct follows naturally. I've never believed that the government has the right or business in mandating moral conduct.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 8:38pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 7:03pm

Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 3:49pm was a "rant"?!?!?

I thought I asked some pretty logical questions...like where will Al's money come from? Some "un-tapped" pool of campaign donations that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards haven't discovered?....or are a LOT of Democrats/liberals around who are going to poney up a ton MORE cash (and WASTE the money they've donated to HRC and the others)?

YOU are the one ranting, my friend. Ranting about Gore riding in on his carbon-free white horse to "save" the Democrats from the likes of Hillary/Barack/Edwards who "everybody knows" have no REAL support (or it's so shallow that it will evaporate under the light of Gore's stellar presence).

Odd? Seems "The Nation" has spoken favorably of John Edwards (a bit of Obama too)...Hillary has raised MILLIONS as have the other two....and yet, Gore arrives on the scene in Halloween and not only do all the Hillary people defect to him, but all the young folks who like Barack Obama and his "new politics", and all the liberal base who like Edwards and his strong stand against the war and his "Two Americas" war on poverty (BTW, what is Gore saying about ending poverty....Edwards' fans will want to know....or maybe not, they probably won't care...after all...it's Al!)

Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect!

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 8:38pm
Anybody want to guess who wrote this article and where it was published?

Is Global Warming a Sin?

[from the May 14, 2007 issue]

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.

Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slow arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. It starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e., 1.1 billion metric tons), and peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, plummets into the Great Depression and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 percent drop. Then, in 1933, the line climbs slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 percent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. It is thus impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from people burning fossil fuels.

I met Martin Hertzberg, PhD, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of The Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the question of human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote around that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the Navy, an occupation that gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, but still consults from time to time.

Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a thesis now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith. Among them was the graph described above, so devastating to the hypothesis.

As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 percent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little warmer. The not-very-reliable data on the world's average temperature (which omit data from most of the world's oceans and remote regions, while overrepresenting urban areas) show about a 0.5 degree Celsius increase between 1880 and 1980, and still rising. But is CO2, at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 percent of solar radiation that the atmosphere absorbs, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in a humid tropical atmosphere can be as high as 20,000 ppm? As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun.... Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the Earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.

It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show CO2 concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled out his first Model T, 300 to 400 percent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties, like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today temperatures, by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local European affair.

We're warmer now because today's world is in the thaw following the recent ice age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the Earth's elliptical orbit round the sun and in the Earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the clinical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by Milutin Milankovitch, a giant of twentieth-century astrophysics. In past post-glacial cycles, as now, the Earth's orbit and tilt give us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.

Water covers 71 percent of Earth's surface. Compared with the atmosphere, there's 100 times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the post-glacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. "The greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." In vivid confirmation of that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last 750,000 years, CO2 changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.

It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. The human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, not to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the Earth's increasingly hot molten core.

Next: Who are the hoaxers, and what are they after?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 8:39pm
I'm a conservative because I believe that successful economic systems empower the individual, and that proper moral conduct follows naturally. I've never believed that the government has the right or business in mandating moral conduct. ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 8:38pm

Okay fair enuf...but doesn't that make you a libertarian? If not, why not?

Posted by Mask at 05/28/2007 @ 8:39pm
Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect!

Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 8:38pm

Sweety wouldn't you be better served channeling uhuru?

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:40pm
Posted by PON... 05/28/2007 @ 7:14bm

I smell fear in the miniscule hearts of the new con 'supporters' (their tiny cups shrinkedeth-under t'boot), petty servicers of dic'tator philosophy. My how an Al Gore presidential run scares the crap out of the repub slime machine here. Or is it that they just can't reach that level of sophisticated discourse that they always reach down under to sling orifice content at their cage.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 8:41pm
Imagine if gore won the white house and things ran well for 8 years

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:43pm
hamsterland would have a cow

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:43pm
which is a really remarkable thing for a hamster to do

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:44pm
ask mask she'll tell you

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:44pm
hamsterland would have a cow

Posted by WILL C. 05/28/2007 @ 8:43pm

A mad cow t'boot

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 8:47pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 8:47pm

the tragedy of having the cow is that then the hamsters would have to scamper out from under those angry hoves

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:51pm
Masky,

You play dumb as an art. I refuted your financing ignorance with facts and you prefer to sit in your shit. Can't help that. What I've already stated stands. What you've stated is already discredited, and as false as your moniker, a real false moniker... heheheh

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 8:54pm
Posted by MASK 05/28/2007 @ 8:39pm

Okay fair enuf...but doesn't that make you a libertarian? If not, why not?

I'm mostly libertarian at heart. But experience has shown that there need to be workable compromises with libertarianism, just like Jeffersonian Democracy needed to be compromised with Hamiltonianism.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 8:56pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 8:54pm

Dudd, you should really leave the giggling to the girls. They'll always do it much much better.

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 8:41pm

Gore doesn't scare me nearly as much as Hillary. That bitch is crazy, and we are all fucked if she gets elected.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm
sorry.... dude

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm
Will, new con repubs are already feeling the trampling asunder, but it's only begun.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm

From watching the hamsters (especially the chimp) I think they are so lost in the hamsterland fantasy that they are actually thinking the rumbling coming closer and closer is a thunderous applause for all their fine achievements

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 9:01pm
As for the giggling, you're right-- that's why I cut/pasted it from Masky...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 9:01pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 8:57pm

Hey SHUB, you with WILL on the OJ innocence thing? He was framed by racist cops? You guys together on that?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 9:02pm
You Dems have all the most outstanding claims on the Presidency:

- Worst President: Jimmy Carter

- Worst Ex-President: Jimmy Carter

- Worst Near President: Al Gore

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 9:04pm
Hey SHUB, you with WILL on the OJ innocence thing? He was framed by racist cops? You guys together on that?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 9:02pm

He wasn't frmaed scotificus. He was found not guilty. Which assures that he, unlike you, isn't facing a long and glorious future taking it in the poopshooticus.

ah, the justice of it all

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 9:07pm
The diatribe posted above by Pointy @8:39pm on the supposed farce of human caused global warming was written by Alexander Cockburn.

He's, unfortunately, gravely mistaken in his logic here.

The more fascinating, and deeply disturbing developing story regards the masking of the impact of global warming by the simultaneous rise of air pollutants.

Completely independent studies of pan evaporation rates in Russia and Australia as well as an Israeli study of sunlight intensity going back to the 60's have corroborated the fact that sunlight intensity has decreased on the order of 10 percent worldwide over the last several decades.

The theory was given a giant boost when a multi-nation cooperative study of air pollutant effects over the northern and southern Maldives resulted in a proposed mechanism for the "dimming" effect on sunlight intensity at the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.

It appears that the countless micron scale particles generated by power plant emissions and automotive exhaust serve as seeds in the production of many much smaller water droplets in clouds versus the normal cloud water droplets which are fewer in number by a couple orders of magnitude and much larger in diameter. The clouds resulting from these tiny droplets reflect significantly higher percentages of sunlight, and in fact are capable of causing large shifts in the equatorial summer rainfall bands.

The upshot of this startling new data is that the necessary measures to clean up hydrocarbon fuel burning emissions will result in a significant rise in the already notable global warming trend.

Many will continue to bury their heads in the sand completely, or continue to bleat their pathetic drivel that there "is no way humans can have such significant effects on the Earth's vast atmospheric system" or other such nonsense.

The alarming facts have been accumulating for at least three decades now and the rate of new corroborating evidence for the danger we face is now on an exponential curve. A recent study by the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado and published in the online version of Geophysical Research Letters indicates that the computer models of the retreat of Arctic ice cover are projecting rates that are far too low.

The new study, based on actual in-situ data, projects an ice free Arctic summer by as early as 2020. This is just one more study among many more to come, I assure you, that are all pointing in the same direction.

We are in one hell of pickle.

If you don't believe me, just wait another year or two as the data coninues to come screaming in at increasing rates.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 9:41pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 9:41pm

You forgot to mention what publication Mr. Cockburn's editorial appeared in.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 9:57pm
Posted by MADLIB 05/28/2007 @ 9:23pm

OJ Simpson?

For realz?

My, how relevant.

Of course it's relevant. Insanity is always relevant.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 9:58pm
which is why you hamsters should never be trusted in positions of power

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 10:04pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 9:41pm

I don't get it - MORE CLOUDS, and hence LESS INTENSE SUNLIGHT, is actually HEATING the Earth? Doesn't seem logical.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:08pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 9:58pm

OJ Simpson?

For realz?

My, how relevant.

Rosie O'Donnell thinks George Bush was behind 9/11 - do you think that's relevant to her state of mind, and thus her views on the world in general?

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:09pm
It is true scootificus, clouds reflect heat, both up...

and down

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 10:10pm
Response to Pointy @ 9:57pm

I believe it appeared in Counterpunch originally, and later in The Nation. It's not an important point, Pointy Headed One. I happen to like Alex as a journalist and human being. Incidently, he was on C-SPAN (In-Depth?) recently and I recommend a look --it should be available at C-SPAN with a little search-- if you can get streaming video on your computer. He's a bright engaging fellow. He just happens to be badly mistaken on the human origins of global warming issue.

It's worth noting that Cockburn is under heavy fire for his position and The Nation is going to print a collection of letters on Cockburn's controversial piece in the next issue I believe.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 10:12pm
Posted by PON 05/28/2007 @ 9:04bm

Pon, your facts are pretty floppy. hsuB is falling downward like a jerkoff w/out no more jizz. I even posted this a ways back on who's scared of Jimmy Carter. Thanks for reminding me. Perhaps you didn't see it?:

Hey looks like hsuB is closer to Nixon than Carter ever was in more ways than 100. And what's really appropriate, Nixon had a much better job approval poll number than hsuB has had just before he got impeached. Meaning, it'll be much easier to do to hsuB/cHeney seeing as more than a few repubs want to get elected in '08 and with hsuB still around, it ain't gonna happen.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"

President________2/9-11/07___2/05___11/03___4/03___2/99

Abraham Lincoln _______18_____14_____17_____15____18

Ronald Reagan_________16_____20_____13_____10____12

John Kennedy__________14_____12_____17_____13____12

Bill Clinton_____________13_____15______9_____11____12

Franklin Roosevelt_______9______12_____11_____9_____9

George Washington______7_______5______7_____7____12

Harry Truman __________3_______2______3_____4_____4

Jimmy Carter_________2______3______3 ____3____3

Theodore Roosevelt _____2_______2______3_____2_____3

Dwight Eisenhower ______2_______1______2_____1_____2

Thomas Jefferson _______2_______2______3_____2_____2

George W. Bush_______2______5______3 ___11____-

Gerald Ford ____________1_______-______-______-_____-

George H. W. Bush ______1_______1_____2______2_____5

Richard Nixon ________-_______1_____1_____1____2

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/21/2007 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 10:14pm
Listen to Will C, Pointy.

The reflectivity of the cloud surfaces to sunlight.......coming from which direction?

The sun is in the sky, really high.

Think about it.

I know you can get this one.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 10:16pm
Here's another hint, Pointy.

The Earth is getting warmer, you're right.

The cloud tops are reflecting sunlight at an increasing rate away from the Earth, you're right.

Is this effect maybe MASKING the real effects of global warming?

It's as I said in the passage. The effect of the increased cloud reflectivity is, in fact, masking the real impact of global warming.

This is a problem.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 10:22pm
Insanity is always relevant.

Posted by PON 05/28/2007 @ 9:58bm

Pon if you believe that you should read Gore's new book:

Al Gore's New Book Examines 'The Assault on Reason'

Center for American Progress. Posted May 22, 2007.

In a ranking of 34 countries, the United States ranks near the bottom in the public acceptance of Charles Darwin's mainstream theory of evolution. Nearly half of the public still believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, despite unequivocal refutations of that claim. In his new book, The Assault on Reason, which will be released today, Gore explains "why logic and reason and the best evidence available and the scientific discoveries do not have more force in changing the way we all think about the reality we are now facing." He sharply criticizes the television media for covering trivial excess and politicians for alienating the public, many of whom believe "that no one in power listens to or cares what they think."

American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," writes Gore. "In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum."

http://www.alternet.org/story/52179/

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 10:26pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 10:16pm

Listen to Will C, Pointy.

I have. He's a moron. One of only four people on my IGNORE list. RESE and PLUNGER for obvious reasons. DR DECIBEL for incessant pointless profanity. WILL for just flat out sheer stupidity.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:27pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 10:26pm

American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," writes Gore. "In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum."

http://www.alternet.org/story/52179/

Al Gore is pure blather, SHUB. Makes no more sense than L. Ron Hubbard.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:28pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:28pm

Al Gore is 'sound and fury - signifying nothing.'

Future historians will wonder what people thought they were hearing when they heard him talk.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:29pm
WILL for just flat out sheer stupidity.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:27pm

a hamster calling me stupid. That's high praise

(sniff) I'm touched

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 10:33pm
Makes no more sense than L. Ron Hubbard.

Posted by PON 05/28/2007 @ 10:28bm

Too late, Pon has been done hollowed out already...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 10:33pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:27pm

WILL for just flat out sheer stupidity.

I should be more clear. Not for just stupidity, that's common enough here. WILL C was ignored because he said OJ Simpson was innocent. That's over the top. Classed along with UFO abductees and those who think the JEWS run the world. Such an opinion is so moronic that it disqualifies any further rational discussion. Everyone has their tipping point. I'm sure you have yours. That's mine. Apologists for mass murderers get no shrift from me.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:38pm
American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," writes Gore. "In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum."

Al Gore is pure blather, SHUB. Makes no more sense than L. Ron Hubbard. ~Posted by POINTY FICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:28pm

Pointy,

Regardless of your opinion of Gore, here's a post from another forum in regards to the poor health of American democracy for your enjoyment. If you can get streaming video you should check out the Adam Curtis stuff.

****************************************************************

The latest figures I've seen indicate that there are 150,000 US military personel in Iraq, and at least 126,000 contractors of which approximately 48,000 are PMC's or private military contractors.

These are stunning numbers and it should also be noted that the official discussions of withdrawal from Iraq, when they have occured at all, never mention the PMC's.

This story is among the very most important of the many important stories that need our attention right now.

For some powerful background on the miserable politcal scene in the US I suggest that those with access to a high speed internet connection google up Adam Curtis, the British documentarian, and you can watch his "The Power of Nightmares" and "The Century of the Self". These two multi-part works give the viewer an excellent sketch of the difficulties facing our modern day "democracy" as we suffer through a maze of manipulation woven by the mass media tentacles of the miltary industrial congressional complex (Eisenhower's original designation).

The two documentaries, despite their critical acclaim, have yet to reach wider distribution in the US for the obvious reason that they are considered anathema to the American corporate elite.

Check them out by all means.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 10:40pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 10:40pm

I might.

I should point out that I'm an agnostic on global warming. For all I know, it may be occurring, it might be occurring to a degree that people really need to be worried about it, and it might be something that we can do something significant about without ruining the global economy. All of those are difficult questions that need to be hashed out.

I only pointed out Cockburn's article to make the point that people on all sides of the political spectrum have different opinions about this. My point about Al Gore is that he may be right, but so might have been Chicken Little. Al Gore is an embittered politician with an ax to grind and no particular qualifications to discuss global warming. Thus he has no more credibility than Rosie Odonnell.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:46pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 10:40pm

I might.

I should point out that I'm an agnostic on global warming. For all I know, it may be occurring, it might be occurring to a degree that people really need to be worried about it, and it might be something that we can do something significant about without ruining the global economy. All of those are difficult questions that need to be hashed out.

I only pointed out Cockburn's article to make the point that people on all sides of the political spectrum have different opinions about this. My point about Al Gore is that he may be right, but so might have been Chicken Little. Al Gore is an embittered politician with an ax to grind and no particular qualifications to discuss global warming. Thus he has no more credibility than Rosie Odonnell.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 10:47pm
WILL C was ignored because he said OJ Simpson was innocent. That's over the top...

Apologists for mass murderers get no shrift from me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 10:38pm

Of course there's always that pesky little fact that OJ was found not guilty. This means as a society, if we are at all honest about our principles of justice, we must again embrace the presumption of innocence that is given to us all.

of course I do understand there are many out in hamsterland that are so thirsty for blood and vengeance that they will do all kinds of crazy shit here and around the world to satiate their lust.

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 10:52pm
and we're all getting a little tired of it

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 10:52pm
Cool.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 10:54pm
Well Pointy,

You yourself appear to exhibit rather strong Manichean views on right and wrong. Gore seems mild compared to your vitriolic opinions.

In any case, even people with disastrously wrongheaded views (Cockburn on human caused global warming), or people who say inane things (Will C perhaps?) can have redeeming features.

It's up to us --the individual-- to sift the aspects of ohters as well as understand that we all have our limitations that are all too often invisible to ourselves.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 10:56pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 10:56pm

Like I said, everyone has a limit. My limit is drawn with people who choose to defend bloody murderers, presumably because they're the "right" color. I find the stench a little too hard to bear. But hey, that's a personal preference.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 11:17pm
Well, I can only suggest that you don't oversimplify your judgements.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 11:21pm
y limit is drawn with people who choose to defend bloody murderers, presumably because they're the "right" color.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 11:17pm

Interesting that Will focussed on the rule of law and Pon focusses on the color of ones skin...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 11:22pm
At his blog, David posted this HRC/Obama intrigue not long ago.......the Bacevich's `Service to Country' commentary, now fairly old, is well worth reading....

May 28, 2007

HRC Trying To Trump Obama/A Must-Read Article

On Memorial Day, the Clinton campaign is working overtime...to undermine Barack Obama. The Illinois senator had long ago scheduled a speech tomorrow In Iowa, in which he would unveil his health care proposal. In other words, Tuesday is a big day for Obama. So what did the Clintonistas do? On the afternoon of Memorial Day, they sent out an email to reporters: Senator Clinton To Deliver Major Policy Address in New Hampshire. And when would she do so: the next day.

READ THIS. There was no more appropriate article published this Memorial Day weekend than Andrew Bacevich's immensely sad piece in The Washington Post. Bacevich has long written in opposition to the Iraq war. Two weeks ago, his son, a GI, died there. A sampling:

To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party....

Powerful stuff. Read the entire piece.

Posted by David Corn at 09:46 PM

Posted by Happy at 05/28/2007 @ 11:24pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 11:22pm

Interesting that Will focussed on the rule of law and Pon focusses on the color of ones skin...

Will did nothing of the sort. Will exhibited pure high school ingenuousness. Worthless.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 11:34pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/28/2007 @ 11:24pm

It's well established that the Dems have sold out in the most heinous fashion with their recent insidious vote. This has been an Et tu Bruti moment. Only this time an entire nation was stabbed.

Here's an essential David Sirota blog entry:

Friday, May 25, 2007 The Final Insult: Dems Brag to Press About Deceiving the Public on Iraq

In case you believe the malarkey being spewed by the House Rules Committee about the rule vote yesterday not really being the vote to give President Bush a blank check, take a look at the Washington Post and the Associated Press today. I reported this at the beginning of the day yesterday and was then criticized by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Now, though, it seems at least some major news organizations have caught on that I was exactly right. In the process, they are reporting what will be recorded in history as the final insult of it all: Democrats running to reporters bragging about their own brilliance in deceiving the public.

Here's the Associated Press:

"In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it."

Here's the Washington Post:

"Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party. Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature...The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton. In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law. 'To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it,' Hastert said."

And here's the worst part of it all - Democrats are now bragging about it. Not only have they sent out a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising email attempting to confuse voters by claiming with a straight face that they really stood up to President Bush. But most insulting of all, they are actually running to reporters to pat themselves on the back for engineering a procedural pirouette designed to confuse the public. Here's the Post again:

"But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions. Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about...Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats. 'It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker,' said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.)."

This is what we're dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/28/2007 @ 11:37pm
Will did nothing of the sort. Will exhibited pure high school ingenuousness. Worthless.

Posted by PON 05/28/2007 @ 11:34bm

Did you mean 'disengenuous'?

So are you saying that Will was disengenuous because he didn't consider a black man automatically guilty before or after he was tried?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 11:41pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 11:37pm

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. This is not 'capitulation' to anything. Members of Congress know that the American people are not willing to give up in Iraq, not yet. They may in the future, but the time is not right, not yet. You can cite all the polls you want, but Congress has their own polls, and they know how to read them. A vote for a date certain withdrawal is nothing but a vote to retreat and defeat, and no one wants that hanging on their head yet; especially not Congressmen in marginal districts.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 11:44pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 11:41pm

So are you saying that Will was disengenuous because he didn't consider a black man automatically guilty before or after he was tried?

Bite me. Everyone in the country knows OJ Simpson is a bloody murderer. If you choose to play word games, screw you and the horse you rode in on.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 11:45pm
Will did nothing of the sort. Will exhibited pure high school ingenuousness. Worthless.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/28/2007 @ 11:34pm

The presumption of innocence is a solid American value. That you hamsters chose to debase it or ignore it does nothing more than demonstrate once again that you hamsters should never be trusted with an office or position that requires one to administer any of the rights and or privileges that we Americans hold dear.

It's a sad fact.

And it's the truth

Posted by Will C. at 05/28/2007 @ 11:49pm
Looks like the congress did exactly what the polls say the public wanted-- funding with benchmarks.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

_____________Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

ALL adults________23_______72________5

___Republicans____54______40________6

___Democrats______4______93________3

___Independents___19______77________4

"Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"

Date___________Republican__Democratic___Both___Neither___Unsure

5/18-23/07__________33________51_________2______4______10

3/06_______________32________45 _________1______9______13

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

________Right Thing__Stayed Out__Unsure

5/18-23/07______35______61_______4

4/9-12/07_______44______51_______5

"How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?"

________Very Well__Somewhat Well__Somewhat Badly__Very Badly__Unsure

5/18-23/07_____2________21_____________29____________47________1

4/9-12/07_____2________29_____________30____________36________3

"As you may know, the U.S. is sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?"

_____________Better__Worse____No Impact___Unsure

5/18-23/07______20_____26________50__________4

4/9-12/07_______25_____26________43__________6

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

_____________Should__Should Not__Unsure

5/18-23/07_____63_______34_________3

4/20-24/07_____64_______32_________4

4/9-12/07______57_______38_________5

"Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Congress should block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what. Congress should allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government are meeting those goals. OR, Congress should allow all funding for the war without any benchmark conditions."

___________Block All__Fund With Benchmarks__Allow All__Unsure

5/18-23/07______13___________69______________15________3

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If the United States fails in its efforts to establish a stable Iraq, who do you think will be most to blame: President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress, or reporters and the media?" Options rotated

President Bush_____________________37

Reporters and the media__________8

Democrats in Congress_________7

Donald Rumsfeld______________5

Republicans in Congress____________1

The Iraqis_____________________5

Combination________________28

Unsure_____________________9

The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Date________Excellent/Pretty Good______Only Fair/Poor

4/20-23/07_________22__________________74

"How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Date________Excellent/Pretty Good______Only Fair/Poor

4/20-23/07__________35__________________58

And hsuB is sliding just above 30% approval-- while cHeney is at 13%, ouch!

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/28/2007 @ 11:52pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/28/2007 @ 11:52pm

Like I said, CBS polls don't mean squat when it comes to Congressional votes. Congress has their own polls, and you can bet that their votes reflect them.

Posted by pontificus at 05/28/2007 @ 11:54pm
Pointy says:

Members of Congress know that the American people are not willing to give up in Iraq.

Rebuttal:

Today (May 24), a NY Times/CBS News poll was released indicating that 76 percent of the American public--including a majority of Republicans--say that the current troop surge is having no effect or making things worse. Also, 63 percent of the public believe the United States should set a withdrawal date from Iraq sometime in 2008.

Pointy says:

You can cite all the polls you want, but Congress has their own polls, and they know how to read them.

Rebuttal:

WTF? Explain your cryptic statement, Pungent One.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/29/2007 @ 12:00am
Scootificus, I wonder if the polls the congress gets also say that Americans want funding with bench marks attached?

If they did, then the congress is addressing the will of the people. If they didn't then the congress and the people are thinking alike.

And that's a good thing for a change considering that for the last six years we've been watching the congress embrace the will of the hamster.

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:01am
Everyone in the country knows OJ Simpson is a bloody murderer. I

Posted by PON 05/28/2007 @ 11:45bm

What poll have you been looking at? Actually you're wrong again:

"The question was asked whether or not Simpson's wealth played a key role getting a not guilty verdict because he could afford the best in legal defense. Seventy-three percent felt that Simpson would have been convicted had he not been rich. Nineteen percent believed that he still would have been acquitted.

People were also asked "If Simpson had been white, would that have had any bearing on the verdict? Would he have been found guilty?" Forty-one percent said yes, he would have been found guilty. Forty-five percent said no.

People were asked if the jurors performed their duty responsibly, regardless of the verdict. Sixty-two percent said that it was, and 32% said that it was not."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/poll/ojpoll4.html

Differences in opinions about the facts in the Simpson trial itself continue to divide whites and blacks. Regardless of the verdict, most whites believe Simpson was guilty of murder; most African-Americans say he was innocent. Two-thirds of all African-Americans think that there was a conspiracy to frame Simpson for the murders; six in 10 whites don't believe in such a conspiracy.

And both groups suspect that racial issues continue to tint the other group's view of the case. Sixty percent of all whites believe that blacks who think Simpson is innocent hold that view mostly because of Simpson's race. Among African-Americans, 58 percent think that whites who maintain Simpson is guilty feel that way mostly based on Simpson's race.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-06/poll_race/oj_poll4.html

Pon, you wouldn't happen to be white?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 12:04am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/29/2007 @ 12:04am

So, do you think OJ is innocent, too? A simple yes or no will do.

Posted by pontificus at 05/29/2007 @ 12:06am
pasty white

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:06am
Pon, I don't know if he really truly 'DID' it-- really. But then I'm neither white or black, so it probably makes sense that I'd have been ok with the verdict either way...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 12:12am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/29/2007 @ 12:12am

Excellent, I'd have been ok with it either way too. If only hamsterland had the same sense of justice

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:15am
Looks like the congress did exactly what the polls say the public wanted-- funding with benchmarks.--Shub

You're right Hsub,

The same poll I cited above also contains this kicker: 69 percent say that Congress should appropriate money for the war as long as benchmarks for Iraqi progress are attached.

Yet we should wonder about the inherent contradiction; the public overwhelmingly wants out, but they support further funding of this war....with "benchmarks".

The obvious solution to the paradox is that the propaganda has worked marvelously i.e. "We must support the troops" (implying that we simply cannot cut off funding).

This reminds me of a scene in the final segment of the documentary "The Century of the Self" where Dick Morris advises Clinton that he can't try to influence the public with great visions, but must instead "meet the people where they stand" via polls. So, in essence, the corporate propaganda becomes the final word and the president's job is simply to give the people what the corporate world has already dictated that they should want.

The ultimate result is the downward spiral of our "democracy".

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/29/2007 @ 12:18am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/29/2007 @ 12:12am

Pon, I don't know if he really truly 'DID' it-- really. But then I'm neither white or black, so it probably makes sense that I'd have been ok with the verdict either way...

I don't believe anyone who has looked at the evidence can really say that they don't know. I don't know anyone - not a single person - who has said they honestly don't know one way or the other. I don't believe you're being honest.

Posted by pontificus at 05/29/2007 @ 12:21am
I don't believe anyone who has looked at the evidence can really say that they don't know.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/29/2007 @ 12:21am

The Jury saw all the evidence and they said not guilty. Since you weren't on the jury, you didn't see all the evidence scootificus.

You are the only one being dishonest here hamster boy

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:27am
Hey dudes,

OJ was overwhelmingly guilty by virtually any measure from the purely circumstantial evidence to the hard evidence aspects of the case.

But it's not particularly important in and of itself.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/29/2007 @ 12:35am
you're living in the wrong country bro

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:35am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 05/28/2007 @ 11:37pm

It seems the Dems have upset Ms. Sheehan so much, she just quit today! From DailyKos:

"Good Riddance Attention Whore"

by CindySheehan

Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement.....

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning......

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party.....

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode....

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing.....

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.....

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ?....

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement....

Good-bye America...It's up to you now.

--------------------------------------------------------

Beyond political diffrences, Ms. Sheehan is a parent, like me, and.....

IF it is any consolation to you, Ms. Sheehan, there are many more than 30% of the country, who believes Casey DID NOT DIE IN VAIN!

Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 12:38am
I don't know anyone - not a single person - who has said they honestly don't know one way or the other. I don't believe you're being honest.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/29/2007 @ 12:21am

So I take it you don't know that many black people?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 12:40am
I'd say a good portion of the pasty whites don't

Posted by Will C. at 05/29/2007 @ 12:41am
Beyond political diffrences, Ms. Sheehan is a parent, like me, and.....

IF it is any consolation to you, Ms. Sheehan, there are many more than 30% of the country, who believes Casey DID NOT DIE IN VAIN!

Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:38am

You left out the part about her property value going up as hsuB is planning on selling his lot too.

As a parent I sympathize with her on several levels. Especially getting extremely close to losing my eldest on three separate occasions for worthless reasons. When the level of extreme survival instinct kicks in, I knew protecting my daughter was my only purpose in life. Afterward was a lot of depression and evaluation as to the cause and precautions needed to take. And if she had died, guilt. I did go into attack mode as well. I'm glad that Sheehan has other children to protect and raise as one can easily lose oneself in a vendetta-- no matter how worthy it is, our children do come first. Sorry to hear she had a lousy time with ungrateful and manipulative tawts.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 01:09am
Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:38am

Anybody interested (and I'm sure many, Left or Right, are) should read the full text of Ms Sheehan's letter.

The Democratic partisans and even the anti-war activists here will be in for a sound thrashing, as she dumps on both the Dems and anti-war groups who she says spend most of their time in EGO battles and internecine fights.

I feel sorry for her. The Right lampooned her and tried to destroy her, simply on the fact that she didn't act like a good little Gold Star Mom and support the war. But the Left failed her as well...especially the Democratic Party (as they failed us all).

Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 09:35am
MISCELLANY (since this thread has ramified)

WillC The presumption of innocence is a solid American value. That you hamsters chose to debase it or ignore it does nothing more than demonstrate once again that you hamsters should never be trusted with an office or position that requires one to administer any of the rights and or privileges that we Americans hold dear.

I don't ignore that anymore than I choose to ignore that a civil jury found that he did commit the murders. If we infer anything from BOTH jury verdicts (incl. the one you ignore), it must be that a preponderance of the evidence was against OJ even it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt (glove not fitting, no weapon found).

Re RCTV, I posted this [alternet.org] on Alternet yesterday on this issue.

LL

First of all, there is no one in the intelligence community that believes that AQ is still in Afghanistan.

Yes, but they are in Wazirstan on the Afghan border. Pressuring them means keeping troops in Afghanistan to keep AQs Taliban allies in check.

Secondly, if you are screaming about casualties now with about 1000 personnel deaths a year, you and the far left would be in orbit over the loss of 10,000-30,000 or more fighting in an area where even the Pakistan Army dares not go.

No, the problem is casualties in a war (Iraq) that is neither strategically or morally justified.

So Mask, perhaps you have better intel than the General in charge?

I'll bet his sources are more honest that someone who takes his marching orders from Bush. After all, this administration has never given us light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel rhetoric. Right? The point is that foreigners have never been more than a small percentage of the insurgency. Most of our efforts are spent fighting Iraqis who will NOT be following us out of the country. If anything, it is more likely that Iraqi Sunnis will turn on the foreigners once the latter aren't necessary to deal with a foreign occupier. Incidentally, what makes you think that US presence in Iraq is keeping AQ pinned-down in Iraq. After all, if they can get in in the first place, they can get out (and are doing so) whenever they want to. If they're fighting us in Iraq, it's because they choose to do so as it boosts recruiting and gives them training in urban operations.

Posted by brunowe at 05/29/2007 @ 10:43am
IF it is any consolation to you, Ms. Sheehan, there are many more than 30% of the country, who believes Casey DID NOT DIE IN VAIN!

of course none of us have a clue what he did die for. Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:38am | ignore this person

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/29/2007 @ 12:14pm
of course none of us have a clue what he did die for.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/29/2007 @ 12:14pm

You won't like my response.......That's why the Far Left has consistently been ignored and Cindy was SOOOOOO EFFECTIVE in putting herself in a deadend!

Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 3:35pm
"The war continues. No checks, no balances."this could be quite dangerous.check out this one http://www.widgetmate.com [widgetmate.com]

Posted by hugepeter at 05/30/2007 @ 03:22am
I would love to see anyone of them on the Dem ticket this fall, including the biggest loon in the flock...ALGORE.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 11:46am

Polls already show Al beating a lot of the repubs currently running and he hasn't even announced that he is! A Gore/Obama ticket would already cream anything the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy could possibly put out there. Name one.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:17pm

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Irar War Vote

posted by David Corn on 05/25/2007 @ 11:43am

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Irar War Vote

posted by David Corn on 05/25/2007 @ 11:43am

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!