In the aftermath of General David Petraeus' stay-the-course presentation to Congress and as George W. Bush prepared yet another major speech-to-the-nation on Iraq, the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates each tried to position him- or herself as the potential commander in chief most in favor of removing U.S. troops from Iraq. But in doing so, can any of them score political points?

During Petraeus' multiple appearances on Capitol Hill, neither Senator Hillary Clinton nor Senator Barack Obama stood out when legislators questioned the Bush administration's pitchman for the war. When Obama and Clinton had their chances, each speechified against the war, without being too tough on Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. But Clinton did toss more pointed queries at the pair than did Obama. Given the hype surrounding Petraeus's congressional testimony, Obama missed a chance to outshine Clinton as the Democrat best able to take on Bush's war. (Judge for yourself. See Clinton's performance here and Obama's here.)

But soon after Petraeus had withdrawn from the Hill, Obama and Clinton renewed the fierce competition over their antiwar bona fides. On Wednesday, Obama delivered a speech in Clinton, Iowa, in which he "unveiled" (as his campaign put it) a "comprehensive plan to turn the page in Iraq."

This plan essentially reiterates what Obama has been proposing since early this year: a phased withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. In January, he introduced legislation to start a pullout with a goal of redeploying all U.S. combat brigades by March 31, 2008. In his Clinton speech, Obama proposed the immediate withdrawal of combat troops at the pace of one or two brigades a month. That would lead to the complete removal of combat forces by the end of next year. Under the Petraeus plan, which Bush backs, U.S. troop levels are projected to be about 130,000 by next summer (the pre-surge level), with no guarantee of any decrease after that.

Though Hillary Clinton has vowed to extricate the United States from Iraq should she be elected president, she has not been as specific in proposing a date or schedule for the drawdown of troops. In July--in a speech in Des Moines--she released her Iraq plan "to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home." One of her "first official actions" as president, she said, would be to direct the Pentagon and the National Security Council to create within the first two months of her administration a "clear, viable plan" to bring U.S. troops home. Like Obama, she called for a quick start to disengagement. Unlike Obama, she has not offered a target date for the completion of a withdrawal.

Both candidates have proposed new diplomatic and humanitarian assistance efforts in Iraq. Clinton wants to appoint a high-level U.N. representative to help broker peace among the factions there. Obama says he would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened under the auspices of the U.N., which would not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. (Send out for the mattresses!) But of the pair, only Obama can cite--as he did on Wednesday in Clinton, Iowa--a pace and a deadline for removing combat troops. His message could be (though he didn't say so): if elected president, I won't need to wait 60 days before coming up with a disengagement schedule.

The Obama camp is not making much of this difference. After his Clinton, Iowa, speech, two of his key foreign policy advisers--Samantha Powers and Sarah Sewell--spoke to bloggers in a conference call. I asked them how Obama's Iraq policy differed from those of other leading Democratic contenders, including a certain senator from New York. Neither raised the issue of troop withdrawals. Instead, they noted Obama's ideas for dealing with Iraqi refugees in and out of Iraq. He proposes providing financial assistance not just to the United Nations but to countries neighboring Iraq. While important, that part of Obama's speech did not come across as a candidacy-defining policy that separates him from the others.

Not to be left in any dust in the post-Petraeus phase, the Clinton campaign, about the time Obama was speaking in Iowa, zapped out an email to the media noting that Hillary Clinton had just sent a letter to Bush demanding that he "greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many troops home so much faster." In the letter, she did not refer to any target date for the completion of a troop drawdown. So between Clinton and Obama, the Illinois senator still has the more specific disengagement proposal.

But as Obama was speaking and Clinton was writing the president, former Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat fighting to stay close to Clinton and Obama in the polls, released a statement calling for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops "to jump-start the comprehensive political solution that will end the violence in Iraq and will allow a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 9 to 10 months." He blasted Obama for suggesting a slower pullout that would "essentially mimic the president's own plan to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer." He called on Obama, Clinton and other lawmakers "to use every tool available to them, including a filibuster, to force the president to change course."

While the top-three Democratic presidential wannabes each advocate removing troops from Iraq, the question (at least, politically) is whether the differences in their positions will matter to any Democratic voters. Obama's plan for Iraq--as described in his Wednesday speech--does not resonate much more than Hillary Clinton's. And Edward's end-it-in-ten-months proposal shaves off only a few months from Obama's suggested timeline. Moreover, such details may not be relevant, considering that none of these folks would be able to implement any policy until 16 months from now. By then, the ground reality in Iraq could dictate a different response.

Still, this is what candidates do: propose future policies based on present situations that could well change. And they maneuver for political position. All of this, though, favors the front-running Clinton. Once upon a time Obama opposed the Iraq war and Clinton (as did Edwards) voted to let Bush start it. This week, there was little in Obama's speech that would not--or could not--appear in a Clinton speech (though Obama's advisers might argue otherwise). Until Obama delivers a speech that Clinton cannot deliver--on Iraq or any other major topic--he will have a tough time portraying himself as a necessary alternative to the leader of the pack.

The war, no doubt, is the issue Democratic voters care most about. And Washington Democrats are about to enter into another difficult period, during which they will have to figure out how to respond to Bush and Petraeus, as additional funding for the war comes up for a vote in the Democratically-controlled Congress. While that occurs, Obama and Edwards each will face a challenge of his own: convincing Democratic voters that his ideas about what to do next in Iraq set him apart from the front-runner and render him a better pick.

******

CHECK OUT David Corn's recent interview with the anticorruption chief of the Iraqi government who was forced out of his job by Prime Minister Maliki and who claims the Maliki regime is so corrupt it ought to be abolished. Click here.

OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." 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 (92)

1. Someone mentioned a dog and pony show on an earlier thread. For some reason that image is stuck in my mind today.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 3:26pm

2. compared to Bush and the troglodyte repug pretenders, these three dems are like Solon.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 3:42pm

3. Well, some good news since Petraeus.....the public ain't buying it-

   WASHINGTON (AP) - The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress and voters for more time.

   The pessimism expressed by most people - including significant minorities of Republicans - contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress on Monday that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he conceded there has been scant political progress.

   By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success.

   Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed - ominous numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for a withdrawal.

   Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 3:43pm

4. Though Hillary Clinton has vowed to extricate the United States from Iraq should she be elected president, she has not been as specific in proposing a date or schedule for the drawdown of troops.

   Whether Samantha Powers got that across to you or not, this IS the defining difference between Obama and Clinton - Obama has a timetable of one year and Clinton has no timetable.

   With no timetable, Clinton has opened the door for a permanent presence in Iraq.

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/13/2007 @ 3:46pm

5. Edwards' call for an immediate withdrawal of a third of our armed forces seems distinctly determined and boldly necessary. Every month, October, November, December, January...is costing us $2 billion (according to Jon Stewart) not to mention lost lives. This occupaton must end and from what I read in your piece, Mr. Corn, Edwards' plan is the more appropriately assertive. (I frankly don't comprehend what a "precipitous" withdrawal would look like. Even if the Shia(sp?) and the Sunni were to devolve further (let the Kurds have the north) what part of that threatens our national interest?). Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the bulwarks of our non-Israeli influence in the region, n'est-ce pas?

   Posted by lewwelge at 09/13/2007 @ 3:59pm

6. CORN: "Moreover, such details may not be relevant, considering that none of these folks would be able to implement any policy until 16 months from now. By then, the ground reality in Iraq could dictate a different response.

   Still, this is what candidates do: propose future policies based on present situations that could well change......And Washington Democrats are about to enter into another difficult period...."

   IF I'm reading David correctly, all the `leading' Dem candidates are wasting their time....if so, David is correct, IMO!

   I can understand why NONE wants to talk about what & how to fund their domestic policies/visions.....talking uselessly about unfolding events is just `playing out' the out!

   Remember, David warned the Dems to use their post-Nov. `08 time to better ends.....it's NOT happening!

   Even Bush/Petraeus seem to be in the withdrawal mood....there isn't even a whole lot of space between the Right/Left positions!

   Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 4:07pm

7. w/Revisions..

   CORN: "Moreover, such details may not be relevant, considering that none of these folks would be able to implement any policy until 16 months from now. By then, the ground reality in Iraq could dictate a different response.

   Still, this is what candidates do: propose future policies based on present situations that could well change......And Washington Democrats are about to enter into another difficult period...."

   IF I'm reading David correctly, all the `leading' Dem candidates are wasting their time....if so, David is correct, IMO!

   I can understand why NONE wants to talk about what & how to fund their domestic policies/visions.....talking uselessly about unfolding events is just `playing out' the clock!

   Remember, David warned the Dems to use their post-Nov. `06 time to better ends.....it's NOT happening!

   Even Bush/Petraeus seem to be in the withdrawal mood....there isn't even a whole lot of space between the Right/Left positions!

   Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 4:07pm

   Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 4:09pm

8. David and all Nation writers

   WHERE ARE ALL OF THE THREADS ABOUT THE HSU SCANDAL?!? A HUGE SCANDAL IMPLICATING CLINTON (AGAIN) AND IT IS COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE NATION (AND MOST OF THE MEDIA).

   NATION READERS...DEMAND HONESTY IN JOURNALISM! DEMAND THE NATION WRITERS COVER THIS HUGE SCANDAL!

   Jeez, Craig admits guilt to a lewd conduct and we get, what, 5-6 threads about it. Clinton is implicated in another scandal and not a peep out of The Nation staff. Not one.

   Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:25pm

9. USC1,

   C'mon, you know The Nation has no way of spinning the Hsu scandal to make it look good for the left. So, they ignore it -- doesn't serve their purposes.

   Let's "move on" (intended reference to moveon.org), nothing to see here.....

   Posted by hepstein at 09/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

10. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 4:25pm

    You following HAPPY's lead...or was this "this hour's monologue" on "The Great One's" show this afternoon?

    YEAH, Mr. Corn, enough talk about the Iraq War...let's discuss something important like if Hillary killed Hsu in Ft. Marcy Park!

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

11. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person

    you are a liar. Hillary has not been implicated in any scandal.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 4:35pm

12. Even Bush/Petraeus seem to be in the withdrawal mood....there isn't even a whole lot of space between the Right/Left positions!----Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 4:07pm

    You mean George Bush and General Petraeus support..."cutting and running"!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 4:36pm

13. " Hillary has not been implicated in any scandal."

    Facts have never concerned Timmie the troll much - easier to just spew lies and nonesense.

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

14. The female counterpart to David.....Don't usually agree w/her....here, some common views..

    Left Attack on Petraeus Poses Problem for Democrats

    Wednesday, September 12, 2007

    By Susan Estrich

    LOS ANGELES --

    The Democrats, especially the Democrats running for president, have a problem, and his name is Petraeus.

    In two days of hearings....he almost certainly impressed a lot of people sitting at home by displaying all the traits Americans hope for in a military leader.

    He was, to put it simply, good, a man who came across as brave, honorable, and true, and that's the problem.

    On Monday, the day Petraeus was to begin his testimony, in the great tradition of Washington politics, MoveOn.org blasted him before hearing a word of it....

    It's one thing to attack the president....But attacking the General who oozes courage, fortitude and decency?

    .......Primaries are won on the Left and Right. General elections are won in the middle. That's the problem Petraeus poses for Democrats. If he could convince MoveOn, this would be easy. But he can't and won't. The danger is that he convinces folks in the middle that it would be irresponsible to simply pull out troops now, rather than trying to stabilize the situation further, that there is enough improvement both politically and militarily at the grass roots level to follow his schedule, rather than a Democratic one, that he knows what is happening on the ground in Iraq better than people who aren't there.

    The risk for Democrats is that those who take him on will be seen as naïve or weak or beholden to the Cindy Sheehans, which is not a direct route to the Oval Office. The other risk is that those who don't will be attacked and belittled for failing to do so, and will never make it to the finals in this contest. It was a whole lot easier when this was just Bush's war.

    Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California. She was Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the first woman President of the Harvard Law Review. She is a columnist for Creators Syndicate and has written for USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.

    Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 4:51pm

15. You mean George Bush and General Petraeus support..."cutting and running"!?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 4:36pm

    Is your memory fading also? Didn't I just days ago, spar w/you and said that folks I respect as NOT poll-driven and LESS political, like BUSH/LIEBERMAN/PETRAEUS, that I would respect and support their positions......I know you are slipping, but does this answer your above question?

    Are you on drugs?

    Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 4:54pm

16. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/13/2007 @ 4:35pm

    Really? Then who was it that gave back $850,000 to these shady donor(s) If it isn't a scandal, it's only because the media is ignoring it. What do you think the Nation would have done had a Republican accepted these bribes, I mean, donations? I'm thinking 7-8 stories AT LEAST. Not so with democrat scandals. You need to ask yourself why.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:00pm

17. osted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person

    you are being inane. both parties accept donations. Hillary has not been implicated in anything. the money they accept does not come with a certified pedigree. Repugs too have returned campaign contributions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 5:08pm

18. How pathetic, that we have to respond to the campaign promises of POTUS candidates - and a new POTUS is a year and a half away - for a hope of ending the war. All we can be certain of is that the toothless Congress will do nothing, and that the beginning of the end of the Iraq occupation is still years away, even as we anticipate a new possible action against Iran, conceivably even this year.

    The war machine is in gear - and the politicians are not going to do anything to stop it. The machine outpaced them a long time ago, and is moving a lot faster than are the politicians who might otherwise impede it. In other words, stopping the Iraq and now Iran disasters was a job for this Congress, that it failed at doing. POTUS candidates are an illusory hope -

    Posted by Zero at 09/13/2007 @ 5:12pm

19. Posted by ZERO 09/13/2007 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

    so, what do you suggest?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 5:24pm

20. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/13/2007 @ 5:08pm

    You're laughable...and naive. And that's all that I have to say about that.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:26pm

21. i got yer oozing right here, bud!

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 4:57pm

    Sorry bud, you've got me wrong....I SURGE....LOL!!!

    Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 5:27pm

22. And now that I think about, where is that in-depth expose by Nichols or Corn on William Jefferson and his accepting bribes and then subsequently being placed on the Homeland Security committee? We're still waiting on that one too. C'mon, Nation, let's hear it.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:30pm

23. I'm sure they could get a book deal out of it.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:30pm

24. Thompson Returns Campaign Cash

    Seeking to put himself in better light after a complaint was filed with the FEC over his undeclared campaign contributions, Fred Thompson -- set to officially announce his candidacy for President later this week -- will return thousands of dollars of campaign contributions that he would only be eligible for should he be the GOP nominee.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 5:34pm

25. You're laughable...and naive. And that's all that I have to say about that.

    Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

    you are a brain dead partisan. not getting a lot of traction are you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 5:36pm

26. not getting a lot of traction are you?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/13/2007 @ 5:36pm

    With the partisan and hypocritical Nation and her faithful minions? I didn't think I would, but I love to expose them (you) for what they (you) are.

    BTW, got a link for that Thompson article? I didn't see where he accepted dirty bribes, er donations, from the dirty Hsu.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:43pm

27. How can any Dem fix this mess? The cooperation of all in the region--including Syria and Iran--is necessary to create an environment congenial to a peaceful resolution. How can a Dem pull that off?

    Israel will not allow it.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:44pm

28. the General who oozes courage, fortitude and decency?

    There is nothing decent about being a political hack doing what your political bosses expect, which is exactly what Petraeus has done. At the 4-star level, politics is everything, so it is surprising that some would expect anything different from the general.

    Remember "general" Al Haig?

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/13/2007 @ 5:48pm

29. Posted by METTEYYA

    I'm thinking more of Jodl, Keitel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:50pm

30. How can any Dem fix this mess? The cooperation of all in the region--including Syria and Iran--is necessary to create an environment congenial to a peaceful resolution. How can a Dem pull that off?

    Israel will not allow it.

    F... what Israel wants! Security in our own country and the world is of greater importance than what a bunch of right-wing thugs that run AIPAC think should be happening!

    The irony is that even Israel would be MORE secure if they get off this war-mongering addiction and learn to live in peace with its neighbors and within their legal boundaries.

    They also need to respect international law, sign the same nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Iran, and quit pretending to be some sort of superpower that can bully every country in the region.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/13/2007 @ 5:54pm

31. Someone mentioned a dog and pony show on an earlier thread. For some reason that image is stuck in my mind today.

    Posted by MATTMAN 09/13/2007 @ 3:26pm

    that was ACOOK.

    and we*, the spectators get stuck with the blood-sucking ticks and fleas.

    *humans

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:02pm

32. More like a donkey show.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 6:02pm

33. usc, happy and everybody else:

    excellent campaign contribution tables etc., [opensecrets.org]

    go there and you'll find all sorts of campaign finance "scandals", all perfectly legal.

    wow.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:09pm

34. With no timetable, Clinton has opened the door for a permanent presence in Iraq.

    Posted by METTEYYA 09/13/2007 @ 3:46pm

    hmmmmmmmmm

    wonder why?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:10pm

35. Sorry bud, you've got me wrong....I SURGE....LOL!!!

    Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 5:27pm

    whoa, please. i just ate.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:13pm

36. Israel will not allow it.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person

    Israel's influence has been vastly overrated.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 6:18pm

37. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/09/04/thompson_returns_campaign_c ash.html

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 6:22pm

38. More like a donkey show.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 6:02pm

    I really don't need that image...nor that of Happy "surging"!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 7:09pm

39. Someone mentioned a dog and pony show on an earlier thread. For some reason that image is stuck in my mind today.

    Posted by MATTMAN 09/13/2007 @ 3:26pm

    And the moustched guy with the white suit,trash can on wheels and broom following along behind sweeping up the horseshit.

    Isn't anybody interested in the HSU scandal or is it occuring in the right party and there fore is not news worthy or needs no investigation?

    Perhaps we need another article on bathroom sex?

    The Nation sucks..it is totally a blind side one view of the world ...and therefore never taken seriously for they are just the same and as bad as they claim the "other" side is.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2007 @ 7:09pm

40. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person

    Posted by METTEYYA 09/13/2007 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person

    Make no mistake and do not be fooled: There will be NO COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF U. S. MILITARY FORCES IF EITHER HILLARY CLINTON OR BARACK OBAMA IS ELECTED PRESIDENT. READ THE FINE RINT...........

    Posted by POSEIDON at 09/13/2007 @ 7:36pm

41. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person

    Posted by METTEYYA 09/13/2007 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person

    Make no mistake and do not be fooled: There will be NO COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF U. S. MILITARY FORCES IF EITHER HILLARY CLINTON OR BARACK OBAMA IS ELECTED PRESIDENT. READ THE FINE PRINT...........

    Posted by POSEIDON at 09/13/2007 @ 7:36pm

42. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/13/2007 @ 7:09pm

    I see this "scandal" being about as damaging to Hillary as the whole Whitewater affair was too Bill. She'll roll right on through it. Remember all the effort the outraged right put into pushing that whitewater thing, and it ultimately took a sex story to get anyone to notice.

    People tend to notice sex stories, and war stories which is why this "scandal" pales in comparison to the trouble the republicans are in. Hillary will retain her dominant position (hmmm..) because the public is nastalgic for those pre-Bush Clinton 90's.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 7:37pm

43. Personally, I hope the Hsu thing does cause her numbers to slip.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 7:43pm

44. Isn't anybody interested in the HSU scandal or is it occuring in the right party and there fore is not news worthy or needs no investigation?

    Perhaps we need another article on bathroom sex?

    The Nation sucks..it is totally a blind side one view of the world ...and therefore never taken seriously for they are just the same and as bad as they claim the "other" side is.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/13/2007 @ 7:09pm

    While I do think you have a valid point here - journalists shouldn't ignore issues just because they involve someone they happen to like politically - the anger of American conservatives such as yourself in cases like this one does tickle me. I can't remember any such outrage from you or any other GOP-voter over, say, those no-bid Bechtel and Halliburton contracts in Iraq. That was cronyism, corruption even, of a much more blatant nature, on a much larger scale.

    But in answer to your question: no, I'm not really interested. The reason is that whoever gets elected president next year, they'll be in charge of the country with the most corrupt political system in the Western world. They'll have won the presidency with money given to them by many different folks who'll all want something in return, which makes all the next president's talk about making America stronger, safer and so on for the benefit of the American people, a pack of lies. Ask not what your country can do for you. Period.

    Sure, Europe is far from perfect as well. The European Union isn't even a democracy, as we're only allowed to vote for the European Parliament, which doesn't have any real power. And, yes, there's lots of corruption in Brussels, too, mainly because corruption is part of the political culture in most of the Southern and Eastern European countries. Still, I like the fact that none of the politicians I can vote for in my country, is sponsored by a corporation.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 09/13/2007 @ 8:04pm

45. Posted by MATTMAN 09/13/2007 @ 7:37pm

    Isn't that the point of the Nation? Aren't they supposed to cover REAL news, the kind of news that matters? Of course not. That's just a slogan to fool suckers like their followers. The Nation just writes their partisan, hypocritical crap and people here eat it up.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 8:04pm

46. I agree also that it is really weird, the way Hsu didn't make a blip on TN while it dominated headlines.

    I suspect certain editors-in-chief were afraid of publicizing a situation which could be boat-rocking to Hillary. TN does not want, apparently, to bite the hand that feeds it.

    Posted by Zero at 09/13/2007 @ 8:07pm

47. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 8:04pm

    I don't know, I'm pretty sure I've seen an ad flashing across the top of my screen that says something about being "proudly biased". If you're looking for fair and balanced coverage, well good luck finding it! At least The Nation makes no pretense about it's bias. There's no need to read between any lines or wonder whose interest is being protected. It's pretty well obvious. I respect their honesty about it.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 8:14pm

48. I suspect certain editors-in-chief were afraid of publicizing a situation which could be boat-rocking to Hillary. TN does not want, apparently, to bite the hand that feeds it.

    Posted by ZERO 09/13/2007 @ 8:07pm

    I particularly don't get it since I've seen plenty of articles that portray Clinton unfavorably here at the Nation.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 8:17pm

49. Somewhat unfavorable is one thing, Mattman, publicizing a scandal is another. The Hillary campaign is probably terrified of having Hillary associated with yet another publicized scandal, both because of her tenuous grip on the Democratic primary campaign, which she is only winning because of name recognition and fame, not for any real rationale behind her candidacy, and because her negatives with those who don't like her outside of primary voters are already so very very high. The last thing she needs is to lose the primary over a scandal (she should lose the primary over her banality and the lack of any good reason for her candidacy) or go into the general season with "she takes money from crooks!" being fed to people in the general public who hate her anyway -

    This is shaping up to be a really, really crappy, pointless election season, at a time in which it should be a deeply meaningful election season. The frontrunner should be making waves on serious stances, challenges to the status quo, and declarations of major policy changes to come. Instead, the frontrunner is making waves first because some camera looked a little bit down her shirt and then because it turns out that one of the crooks that bankrolls her (they're all bankrolled by a few crooks to be sure) got exposed.

    Posted by Zero at 09/13/2007 @ 8:25pm

50. Posted by POSEIDON 09/13/2007 @ 7:36pm

    POSEI, if they don't pass a tax hike....they just won't be able to AFFORD it after 2010. Despite HAPPY's assurances that we can run up trillions more in debt with no harmful effects, nobody serious believes that we can keep dumping hundreds of billions a year into an Iraqi operation.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 8:30pm

51. Posted by ZERO 09/13/2007 @ 8:25pm

    And the frontrunner is the frontrunner because she is not challenging the status quo, or doing any of those other things you mentioned. Toeing the line is how someone here put it before.

    My mother said something that amused me recently, which is that it is "Hillary's turn" within the Democratic party. I think that's how many see it, including Gore who could arguably be doing quite well, though mimicking Hillary's positions in rote fashion. It's her turn! I really think that's how the DNC guys see it too.

    Her presence is dangerous. So many hate her on the left and right. Who are these people who like her? FrankGrits is the ONE person around here who will openly say that she's his number one choice. I'll admit that I'll vote for her if I have to, only because there is a damn good chance that we'll have more republican nonsense if enough don't toe the line. I know your stance on this, as we discussed it the other day and I've got to say I can respect it. I'm not willing to move because I like it here and there's no reason we shouldn't have social justice. Time to sound like a freakin broken record, but I believe at this point in time for pragmatism as a strategic means to an end in pushing the ideological envelope leftward. It's the only winning strategy, at least that I can conceive.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/13/2007 @ 8:38pm

52. READ THE FINE RINT...........

    Posted by POSEIDON 09/13/2007 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person

    I'm having a little trouble with the fine rint.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 8:55pm

53. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person

    what are you doing here then? feel free to leave anytime. you will not be missed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 8:57pm

54. I see this "scandal" being about as damaging to Hillary as the whole Whitewater affair was too Bill.

    Matt, after years of investigation, and millions spent, there was nothing to Whitewater. NOTHING

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 9:01pm

55. wow, folks

    y'all seem like jazz musicians who have to choose between seeing lindsay lohan, ashley simpson, or jessica simpson in concert.

    oh, the anguish.

    good luck.

    this might help:

    choosing the best candidate [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 9:04pm

56. here it is folks, "highlights" of mr. bush's diatri... uh, speech on iraq

    [as transcribed by frosty zoom--sorry i missed the first few minutes]

    "enjoy"

    anbar, shieks, al-qaeda, sunni, terrorists, quality, success, country, siege, markets, violence, coalition, re-opened, sectarian, ordinary, sanctuary, extremist, uprising, iraqi, iranian, assassination, today, killed, military, security, uh, government, tyranny, benchmarks, done, b,b, baathists, local, key, progress, local, national, troops, brilliantly, killed, 1500, january, forward, petraeus, army, although, police, populations, cleared, 'cause, believes, security, leave, month, brigade, 5700, july, 20, 15, phase, defeated, security, mission, operations, transition, limited, training, force, chiefs, members, congress, advice, accepted, update, plan, accordingly, march, situation, national, security, more, troops, ensure, flexibility, enemy, want, uh, should, begin, odds, tonight, debate, together, support, all, time, require, economic, beyond, enduring, ready, begin, protect, region, fewer, free, critical, al-qaeda, iran, extremists, stability, middle, partner, safer, issue, difficult, succeed, generations, driven, emboldened, al-qaeda, iran, nuclear, energy, children, world, september, 2001, party, vital, chaos, defeat, afghan, holy, military, terrorists, congress, come, strength, funds, petraeus, ask, people, freedom, death, demand, confidence, friends, peace, you, secure, protect, strengthen, iran, free, civilized, 37, democracy, nations, economy, conferences, expanded, iraq, intelligence, front, asked, progress, courage, home, grateful, sacrifices, e-mail, brandon, killed, suffered, sorrow, purpose, serve, fighting, jeff, good, evil, cost, son, freedom, blessed, sacrifices, just, right, falls, us, gains, too, late, never, al-qaeda, freedom, support, troops, win, god, america, night.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 9:22pm

57. My favorite part..."enemy, want, uh, should, begin, odds, tonight, debate, together"

    The man's Churchillian!

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 10:01pm

58. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 10:01pm

    churchilling

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 10:48pm

59. Vietnam all over again. When the US agree it was time to get out and the actual withdrawal took 7 years and 27,000+ wasted lives and who knows how many more wounded for life. I will not vote for anyone that supports the stay the course. Lack of courage to do the right thing is reason not to get elected. Damm I wish we had term limits for Congress.

    Posted by tginmn at 09/14/2007 @ 03:08am

60. Democrats give back dirty money before the election. Republicans pay back their crook contributors after the election.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/14/2007 @ 07:41am

61. Posted by FREIHEIT 09/14/2007 @ 03:31am

    well until i turn of the java script (makes everything run MUCH faster; sorry TN--don't see the ads) there is an ad that says something like:

    3 great things this summer: 1) REPUBS LOST CONGRESS 2) SOMETHING ELSE 3) SAVE $ WITH SUBSCRIPTION.

    i read it BECAUSE it's biased.

    p.s. i read lots of other stuff, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/14/2007 @ 08:11am

62. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/14/2007 @ 09:56am

    That kid...was a kid. And I kinda feel sorry for her.

    But atleast she has a chance to grow up and smarten up a bit.....61 year old men rarely do.

    Posted by Mask at 09/14/2007 @ 10:06am

63. USC1 if you don't like the coverage here you are free to go elsewhere. Why don't you go blog on Fox News' website?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/14/2007 @ 1:56pm

64. FREIHEIT, MAASCH, USC1: You guys crack me up! Getting yourselves all worked up in a froth because you don't like the coverage here. What a bunch of masochists!

    The Nation is a self-proclaimed liberal magazine. Yes, honest about their viewpoint, unlike Fox. Just keep up your whinning and complaining - and then sign up for more with your repeated daily visits. What a hoot! I'm here for the entertainment.....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/14/2007 @ 2:02pm

65. ....Despite HAPPY's assurances that we can run up trillions more in debt with no harmful effects, nobody serious believes that we can keep dumping hundreds of billions a year into an Iraqi operation.

    Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 8:30pm

    MASK,

    You are becoming more dishonest w/every post...and maybe this is why you end up in never-ending feuds w/so many! Now I see how it was quite possible YOU were the evildoer!

    I provided no assurances, I gave my opinion very specifically related to foreigners buying US debt! In a followup, I alsl stated that such borrowing DO lead to higher interest rate that DOES affect our domestic economy. IF you don't understand my points, do NOT twist them into something, like assurance, to help you make some other discussion point!

    As a blog full-timer, with high likelihood of being paid by somebody (I have a `theory' that I may share w/the blog later as the campaign develops), you have an advantage we can't overcome! But indeed, you picked a great handle....MASK indeed!

    Posted by Happy at 09/14/2007 @ 2:24pm

66. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 09/14/2007 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person

    right you are. in addition The Nation is not a news magazine but rather a journal of opinion.

    these guys have been passed by, they are anachronisms

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/14/2007 @ 7:22pm

67. Posted by HAPPY 09/14/2007 @ 2:24pm

    HAPPY, when I asked you about the enormous deficits we were running up...mostly on the occupation of Iraq...did or did NOT you start by saying "I USED TO be worried about deficits...."?

    And did you not further say you have little worries about the deficit we are running up now?

    Posted by Mask at 09/14/2007 @ 10:55pm

68. ...did or did NOT you start by saying "I USED TO be worried about deficits...."?

    And did you not further say you have little worries about the deficit we are running up now?

    Posted by MASK 09/14/2007 @ 10:55pm

    I did say "I USED to..." and in hindsight, for a complex subject (I clearly said that as well), I should have followed with a bunch of qualifiers. But, even if I did then (if I had the time to do so in the first place), I am pretty sure you would twist them in some ways and the subject will never end! I AM wising up to your MASKy ways!

    The simple truth is that many `traditional' assumptions on global capital flows have fallen to the wayside. Something similar to oil pricing. No past economists/financiers could have foreseen the amount of capital that is zipping through the world today....Had someone predicted that America can run a trade and fiscal deficit at nearly a trillion dollars per year, damn near every economist would have predicted economic disaster.

    Now, I'll make another attempt to address my not having a great deal of "worries about the deficit we are running up now" even though I had already addressed it.....but you didn't pick up on it! As long as we can maintain our position of being the dominant capitalist country with world-leading property protection laws, AND we can keep our economy growing, at say ~3% above inflation, I would not be worried about the deficits.

    One qualifier I'll add here, is at the level of the deficits like what we have very recently experienced....and trending DOWN due to economic growth STILL stemming from the Bush tax cuts!

    What I am almost certain WILL happen, with Dem control of everything, is exactly the opposite of why I am CURRENTLY not worried. Recall one comment I made about the country will decidedly make an 180 degree turn away from the pro-growth policies that started w/Reagan and that even Clinton bought into.

    Here's how Alan Greenspan said about Bill Clinton his new book:

    (from WSJ) He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad."

    To close my ramble, never forget one of HAPPY's LAW to a HAPPY country....a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth....!!!!

    Posted by Happy at 09/14/2007 @ 11:45pm

69. Posted by HAPPY 09/14/2007 @ 11:45pm

    maybe, but it is making our oil, and rocks, and trees, and grains, and other stuff we tear out of this poor planet a lot more expensive for y'all.

    watch as the dollar goes DOWN

    ----------------------------------- dOWN

    -----------------------------------------doWN

    ----------------------------------------------dowN

    ---------------------------------------------------down

    --------------------------------------------------------dow........

    ---------------------------------------------------------------- ow..........

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ w.....................

    hey, i can see a very logical progression

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2007 @ 12:14am

70. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/15/2007 @ 12:14am

    Happy,

    try looking at the above table with the font at about 15 pt.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2007 @ 12:16am

71. Posted by USC1

    what a marroon!

    this the reasoning that got us into Iraq, no reasoning "t'all.

    Another Republican returns Abramoff donations Monday, December 19, 2005

    Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana) has returned $19,000 in donations from former tribal clients and associates of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Associated Press reported. Rehberg gave the tribal donations back to the tribes. He donated $2,000 that he had received from Abramoff to domestic violence centers on the Fort Peck Reservation and the Fort Belknap Reservation. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) hasn't decided whether to return $6,000 in Abramoff donations. The Montana Democratic Party said it was trying to confirm a $5,000 donation from a former tribal client that was made in 2002. A number of lawmakers, mostly Republicans, have returned their Abramoff donations. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Montana) gave back $136,000, the most of any member of the House or Senate. "Earlier in the week a Burns spokesman said the money wouldn't be returned because it already had been spent -- which will go down as one of the lamer excuses we can remember," The Great Falls Tribune said. Burns changed his mind on Friday. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) received $131,000 in Abramoff-related donations, the second highest total of any member of Congress. But in a letter to The Washington Post, he said he doesn't have any ties to the disgraced lobbyist.

    http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/011782.asp

    What legislation did Hillary pass for Hsu? Was she aware of his felony conviction before it was wieldy known? If you have some of that dirt, I would love to see it. Knock her down a peg.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/15/2007 @ 12:56pm

72. ahh, here we go:

    http://www.congressionalbadboys.com/Abramoffm.htm

    Here's My Abramoff Money

    Take My Money, Please!

    My, my, this Abramoff money is so hot, that congressmen are falling all over themselves to get rid of the money. One good thing coming out of it--charities are getting some unexpected money.

    Let's also keep a running tab of Republicans and Democrats. As of January 6, 2006:

    These Honorable Members got money directly from Abramoff or his wife:

    The Honorable Roy Blunt (Republican-Missouri): will return $8,500 Abramoff donations, but not donations from Abramoff clients. GOP-1; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Kit Bond (Republican-Missouri): will return $12.5; Salvation Army will get the money. GOP-2; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Sam Brownbeck (Republican-Kansas): $42,000. GOP-3; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Jim Bunning (Republican-Kentucky): $1,000; to a hospice program at St. Elizabeth Medical Center. GOP-4; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Dan Burton (Republican-Indiana): $7,000 from Abramoff, $12,000 from Abramoff-connected tribes, to Autism Society, Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Eisenhower Medical Center. GOP-5; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Conrad Burns (Republican-Montana): $150,000. GOP-6; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Eric Cantor (Republican-Virginia): is "considering" returning $500. GOP-7; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Saxby Chambliss (Republican-Georgia): $1,000 to Georgia National Guard Family Support Foundation. GOP-8; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Thad Cochran (Republican-Mississippi): $8,000 to Katrina hurricane relief. GOP-9; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Barbara Cubin (Republican-Wyoming): $250 to Wyoming Substance Abuse Treatment Center. GOP-10; Dem.-0

    The Honorable Tom Davis (Republican-Virginia): returning $500 from Abramoff; another $4,000 from Abramoff-connected tribes. GOP-11; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Elizabeth Dole (Republican-North Carolina): returning $1,000. GOP-12; Dem: 0

    The Honorable John Ensign (Republican-Nevada): donated $10,000 to Nevada Patriot Fund, which gives money to families of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq. GOP-13; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Mike Enzi (Republican-Wyoming): donating $1,000 to a Wyoming charity. GOP-14; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Tom Feeney (Republican-Florida): returning unspecified amount. GOP-15; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Mike Ferguson (Republican-New Jersey): gave $2,000 to Children's Specialized Hospital Foundation. GOP-16; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Mark Foley (Republican-Florida): donated $2,000 to local drug and alcohol rehab center; would not return other $3,000 from two Abramoff-connected tribes. GOP-17; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois): received $69,000, but only $2,500 directly from Abramoff; all is donated to charity. GOP-18; Dem: 0

    The Honorable J.D. Hayworth (Republican-Arizona): donating $2,250 from Abramoff to Salvation Army hurrican Katrina relief, but won't give back "hundreds of thousands" from tribes. GOP-19; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Johnny Isakson (Republican-Georgia): donated $4,000 from Abramoff to the Salvation Army's hurricane relief effort; and returned $5,000 from Abramoff-connected tribes. GOP-20; Dem: 0

    The Honorable James Inhofe (Republican-Oklahoma): gave $2,000 to Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. GOP-21; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Ernest Istook (Republican-Oklahoma): will return personal donation. GOP-22; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Walter Jones (Republican-North Carolina): returned $1,000. GOP-23; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Tom Latham (Republican-Iowa): donated $1,000 to Greater Iowa Chapter of Alzheimer's Assn. GOP-24; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Frank Lobiondo (Republican-New Jersey): returned $1,000. GOP-25; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Marilyn Musgrave (Republican-Colorado): donated $1,000 to Crossroads Safe House. GOP-26; Dem: 0

    The Honorable ex-Rep. George Nethercutt (Republican-Washington): donated $1,000, but not $6,000 from Abramoff-connected clients. GOP-27; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Bob Ney (Republican-Ohio): donated $6,500 to American Indian College Fund. GOP-28; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Chip Pickering (Republican-Mississippi): doated $2,500 from Abramoff to Katrina hurricane relief; will keep $15,000 from Abramof-connected tribal clients. GOP-29; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Richard Pombo (Republican-California): returned in 2005 personal donation from Abramoff. GOP-30; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Ralph Regula (Republican-Ohio): donated $1,000 to American Indian College Fund; kept other Abramoff-connected tribal donations.. GOP-31; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Dennis Rehberg (Republican-Montana): will donate $20,000 to charity. GOP-32; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Paul Ryan (Republican-Wisconsin): will donate $950 to USO Operation Phone Home and American Heart Ass. GOP-33; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Jim Saxton (Republican-New Jersey): returned $1,000. GOP-34; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Richard Shelby (Republican-Alabama): returning $1,000. GOP-35; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Rob Simmons (Republican-Connecticut): donated $1,250 to Hurricane Katrina relief fund. GOP-36; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Gordon Smith (Republican-Oregon): will donate a total of $6,000 from Abramoff and clients; returned $3,500 to clients before Abramoff plea. GOP-37; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Ted Stevens (Republican-Alaska): received $11,500, with $1,500 directly from Abramoff; will donate the $1,000 to Alaska Red Cross. GOP-38; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Jim Talent (Republican-Missouri): will return donations from two groups; returned in 2005 $2,000 from Abramoff and $1,000 from Preston Gates. GOP-39; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Craig Thomas (Republican-Wyoming): donated $8,000 to victis of tornado in Wright, Wyoming. GOP-40; Dem: 0

    The Honorable John Thune (Republican-South Dakota): donated $2,000 to South Dakota domestic abuse shelter. GOP-41; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Heather Wilson (Republican-New Mexico): will donate $1,000 to Greater SW Boy Scouts of America; will keep $4,000 from Abramoff-connected tribes. GOP-42; Dem: 0

    The Honorable Roger Wicker (Republican-Mississippi): will donate $250 received from Abramoff in 1996 to Mississippi Hurricane relief. GOP-43; Dem: 0

    Compiled from various sources by National Journal's Hotline.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/15/2007 @ 1:07pm

73. Posted by HAPPY 09/14/2007 @ 11:45pm

    HAPP, you've made it quite clear....we can keep spending BILLIONS in deficits and keep losing thousands in Iraq...

    as long as Bush, Petraeus, and Joe Lieberman tell you it's "okay".

    Posted by Mask at 09/15/2007 @ 2:33pm

74. ....as long as Bush, Petraeus, and Joe Lieberman tell you it's "okay".

    Posted by MASK 09/15/2007 @ 2:33pm

    You're one tenacious MASK & never admits to stretching, twisting or re-interpreting others' words and intent, to suit your purposes of course! Your tactics are akin to gorilla warfare and propaganda! But then, you have certain very pronounced agendas to your mission here at TN!

    If it means this much to you (?and your employer?), I'll HAPPILY say the quote above, is true in so far as to how to conduct the Iraq War. As for spending on the War, I look at the bulk of that, as necessary security expenditures that have been effective for 6 years and when Bush, Petraeus, and Joe Lieberman decide otherwise, I'm good since I presume that they will shift resources to battle AQ elsewhere.

    Time for football!

    Note to self regarding CRABB: IF Michigan (0-2) beats Notre Dame (also 0-2) today, I will parole him in honor of his state and hope this win will cheer up temporarily, the state of Michigan (though CRABB is no fan of the Wolverines)!

    Posted by Happy at 09/15/2007 @ 3:20pm

75. It shouldn't be difficult to distinguish one's self from Clinton. She's already on the record for indefinite occupation, legitimized by the role as "bribe taker from all the people" she has cast for herself. That she will mimic Bush's token draw downs to perpetuate the illusion she is against this occupation should be no surprise. But there's no way she will abandon that oil. Neither will Obama, and neither will Edwards. And since Kucinich will never be taken seriously by corporate media, we're left muddling over how long the "indefinite" in indefinite occupation means: ten years, twenty, or until the oil runs out.

    Posted by trippin at 09/15/2007 @ 5:45pm

76. or until the oil runs out.

    Posted by TRIPPIN 09/15/2007 @ 5:45pm

    we'll be underwater by then.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2007 @ 6:44pm

77. HAPPY:

    Gorilla warfare?

    You might wanna get a dictionary.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2007 @ 7:42pm

78. Yeah, with Obama and Clinton equivocating on withdrawal I'm seeing Edwards most resembling Kucinich's principled defiance of the noxious neo-cons and their sheep-like, albeit attrited followers.

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/16/2007 @ 8:52pm

79. Posted by HAPPY 09/15/2007 @ 3:20pm

    HAPPY, it's interesting you say I'm "twisting your words"...then you basically agree that what I said is true.

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2007 @ 9:57pm

80. Chuck Hagel knows from the very beginning that this Texas crowd is all about dirty tricks, corruptions, machinations, greed. Why is that only now does he speak out. Too little, too late for a principled man like him. Read this.

    ---------

    Hagel Calls Bush's Iraq Policy "Dirty Trick" CNN | September 16, 2007 11:45 AM

    From CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer: Republican Senator Cornyn was asked to respond to a comment from fellow Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel strongly criticized President Bush's Iraq policy, going so far as to call it a "dirty trick."

    Posted by Helen DAO at 09/16/2007 @ 10:17pm

81. ....then you basically agree that what I said is true.

    Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 9:57pm

    IF you get such a BIG jolly & pat yourself on the back for quoting ONE of my points exactly right, I'll do you a favor & post it again for you.......I guess each time I post something you can later restate exactly right, you're just jumping w/joy! My, such talent! You're the MASK!

    Posted by MASK 09/15/2007 @ 2:33pm: ....as long as Bush, Petraeus, and Joe Lieberman tell you it's "okay".

    Posted by HAPPY 09/15/2007 @ 3:20pm: If it means this much to you (?and your employer?), I'll HAPPILY say the quote above, is true in so far as to how to conduct the Iraq War....

    Posted by Happy at 09/17/2007 @ 12:22am

82. HAPPY...

    "As for spending on the War, I look at the bulk of that, as necessary security expenditures that have been effective for 6 years and when Bush, Petraeus, and Joe Lieberman decide otherwise, I'm good since I presume that they will shift resources to battle AQ elsewhere."

    Seems you agree with BOTH points. Bush, Petraeus, and Lieberman say stay in Iraq...you're for staying in Iraq. Bush, Petraeus, and Lieberman say keep spending BILLIONS in Iraq...you're for spending BILLIONS in Iraq.

    So...what about Posted by MASK 09/15/2007 @ 2:33pm ...is wrong?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 09:00am

83. I have the mindless ones blocked but:

    "Gorilla warfare"

    CLASSIC!

    Yet the uber-egotist would try to tell you to take investment advice from such a knucklehead?

    Even more funny, thanks.

    lololololololololo

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/17/2007 @ 09:27am

84. The MoveOn ad in the New York Times was a good ad.

    General Petraeus is a Traitor. General Petraeus is betraying the US.

    If you can't even say the truth, where can you start?

    Posted by conshame at 09/17/2007 @ 09:59am

85. It would be helpful if so-called progressives rather than reporting on the MSM generated horserace, would actually participate in exposing Clinton as the DLC fraud she is instead of attacking Sheehan. It is embarrassing the way so-called "progressives" swoon over the ground Hillary walks on and promote her status as heir apparent over the issues. Disgusting.

    "It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests..."

    Hillary Clinton

    Posted by Lil at 09/17/2007 @ 10:19am

86. Posted by LIL 09/17/2007 @ 10:19am

    http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/41604/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:59am

87. Posted by LIL 09/17/2007 @ 10:19am

    Gee, LIL, Sheehan again?

    So, what "right wing media outlet" has been attacking Cindy now?....Mother Jones or The People's Weekly World?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 1:47pm

88. Kirk!

    The uber-egotist Happy still posts. If you call him an a**hole, which he is, he will put you on his 'ignore list'. Do it!

    O'Reilly

    Posted by NeilSagan at 09/17/2007 @ 5:59pm

89. Displaced Iraqis around the world CHART [tinyurl.com].

    Dis Wolfowitz take the economic impact of the dsiplacements into his calculations when he assured us Iraqi oil revenues would pay for reconstruction?

    Does anyone know what American taxpayers have spent on Iraqi reconstruction and how much longer we can foot the bill on this war and Iraqi reconstructiuon before our debt load impacts our economic growth?

    Posted by NeilSagan at 09/17/2007 @ 6:11pm

90. and how much longer we can foot the bill on this war and Iraqi reconstructiuon before our debt load impacts our economic growth?

    Posted by NEILSAGAN 09/17/2007 @ 6:11pm

    too late!

    thanks for the chart.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:14pm

91. Don't forget about Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. They are the best candidates for those who want to end the war and prevent a war with Iran.

    Posted by SeanM at 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

92. Posted by SEANM 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

    tu rêves en couleurs

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:16pm