Redstate

I can understand Gordon Smith's vote. He has to run for re-election in Oregon next year.

There is no excuse however for Hagel to vote against this common sense amendment. I am 100% sure that we can get a real Republican elected from Nebraska. As a matter of fact, even the Democrat Senator from Nebraska is better than a lot of RINOs.

The same goes for those 2 traitors in the House. They both come from reliably conservative districts that will elect any credible Republican. We should OUST those jerks.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

FYI: Hagel's vote here MADE the difference. If he switched, it would have been a tie vote that Cheney would surely break in favor of the Patriots.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

I can understand the rationality of not throwing out Gordon Smith in the Oregon primary, where the likely result in a blue state general election would be having Smith replaced by a Democrat. But in a red state like Nebraska, the Republican primary voters should certainly find somebody who could both beat Hagel and go on to victory in the general election.

I'll quibble about the word RINO in Hagel's case. I think he does vote with the Republicans on a most issues, but that doesn't count for much weighed against trying to surrender to America's enemies in the middle of the war. People like Collins or Specter may have lower percentages than Hagel for voting on the same side as most Republicans, but at least they don't sell out our soldiers to indulge their vanity like Hagel.

At heart Hagel is as much of a media whore as McCain, but Hagel is just too dumb to be as good at it as McCain. And even for McCain, signing on to this sellout with Hagel wasn't worth the media adoration it would get him.

You say you understand Gordon Smith voting Yea because he's running for re-election; but does that mean you do not understand Norm Coleman from Minnesota (also running for re-election) because he voted Nay?

Your understanding of Gordon implies that there is something about being incumbent that makes it predictable for a Republican to side with the Democrats in this issue, but this was not the case since most incumbents running for Re-election voted contrary to Gordon Smith, by far.

Please clarify.

and they burn soldiers in effigy. I can understand Gordon Smith not being in a good spot with his vote either way (I live in OR).
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

a vote this critical just to keep your seat. He will lose it anyway. Hopefully in the primary. But certainly in the general.

calling those who oppose giving troops the support required to complete their mission - a mission authorized by those very same people not so long ago - traitors is rational and correct, although helpful is open for debate.

On your other point - whether conservatives are the majority or not - you must remember that there has not been any strong elected conservative leadership in this country for approximately 18 years now. Thus people have not had conservative principles to vote on or support in the elections and have reverted to silence by not voting. Look at the reelection of Reagan, the last true conservative elected president. It was by all definitions a landslide with Reagan carrying 49 states. That was when the "silent" majority came out to the polls and showed their numbers...

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

you aren't just reversing causality here? That there hasn't been a strong conservative government in 18 years could mean Americans haven't been offered one - or it could mean they don't want one.

As for the troops, I don't have a hard position to take here. I don't buy the line that Congress either has to fund the troops or surrender. If I were there, I wouldn't be giving up on Iraq just yet, but I honestly can't find a lot of fault with the folks there who disagree with me (and you, and Redstate). They're assessing the information they have and the stated opinions of their constituents. If we take seriously the idea that Congress serves the American people, I think we should have a much harder time getting angry with Congress when it tries to do what the American people elected it to do (assuming, I think reasonably, that the current Congress was elected largely because of its opposition to staying the course).

Rather than guess ? You might be surprised by what you find.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I spent 3.5 seconds searching Google and here's what I turned up:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_american...

41% identify as conservatives. 41 < 50. QED.

Also, as the piece I've linked points out, Americans may use the word "conservative" but actually want some fairly liberal policies. For instance, they seem to support national health care something like 2-1, they support some amount of legal abortion, and so on. A broad nationwide opposition to same sex marriage does not a silent conservative majority make.

41 % conservative
21% liberal
34% Moderate

Of course when you toss this in
"This, from a survey sample where 47% are Democrats or Democrat leaners vice 43% Republicans or Republican leaners"

You get a country that seems majority conservative. Go figure
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and remember, we're in MoeLane41's "Kinder, Gentler Red State", conservatives are a plurality. By a larger margin than Bill Clinton won either time...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

...but you can lay off any time now.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

It may get me to bust a gasket.

Especially the chickenhawkers. Its like drowning and being chained to suicidal children.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Chickenhawking is still a per se bannable offense.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Or, rather, I see no reason to disagree. I think the picture is obviously muddied by inexactness of definition and (well-deserved?) demonization of the term liberal. All that said, I am not surprised by the fact that a larger portion of the electorate considers itself conservative than anything else, but that silent plurality is certainly not uniform. A large majority of Americans (presumably some conservatives are included) favor national health care and are skeptical of continuing the war in Iraq. Whether they are wrong about those things is a completely separate issue from whether Congressmen are traitors for voting in tandem with those opinions.

And, just to be clear, I don't discount the fact that Congresscritters should have spines and be willing to buck their constituents when those constituents are wrong (which, lord knows, they are a LOT). But this issue is much deeper than "Gordon Smith is a traitor."

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

We're experimenting with a Kinder, Gentler RedState model again. 'Egregious' is to be my new watchword; mere dumba**ery ain't going to cut it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

MoeLane41...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

"mere dumba**ery ain't going to cut it."

I appreciate it.... :)

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

If you ask people wether they are in favor of destroying the terrorists in Iraq or surrendering to them, they overwhelmingly support victory.

If that's your idea of how to properly ask an unbiased question, it's no surprise you're disheartened by typical polling results.

if you think that question isn't the actual pair of options on the table.

It's about language not options. Whether I believe personally that the grey area in the Iraq War is a null set isn't relevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that the fate of our troops in Harm's Way should be boiled down to whomever uses the most popular SEMANTICS????? And, you call conservatives deluded; Geez.

If you ask people wether they are in favor of destroying the terrorists in Iraq or surrendering to them, they overwhelmingly support victory.

Was the wording of a question in a poll exactly as you just wrote it?

Thats because most of this nation is being fed lies and pro
Al Qeada/antiAmerica garbage from its own media.

Most Americans have no clue what is going on in Iraq, who is behind it or what the consequences are if we pull out.

The media refuses to investigate any of those answers because they know it would turn the sentiment toward defeating terrorist and all around bad guys.. but worse, it would mean that Bush was right.

My sense is that Democrats are trying to neutralize the one policy flaw which they have been stuck with for decades - that they are weak on national security.

The media is giving them more cover fire than in any time in history.

Truth is if this continues we really will be going through and honest to God Stalinistic state where opposition wont just be shouted down, but will be supressed through government legislation. See "fairness" doctrine.

only means the Kos Koolaid Kids spew their hateful bilge in large volume.

Even when the Yankees lose (as they did in 2001 to our DBacks, thanks Louis!) they still have some things going for them.

1. They are a Team.
2. They have one guy accountable for victory.
3. They don't tolerate mavericks who think they know how to manage.
4. They have one goal all season long - WIN.
5. Every player understands the goal and is committed to it.
6. If a player doesn't play up to expectations he is replaced.

A smarmy, mealy-mouthed pretender like Hagel would last not one out of his first inning with the Yankees. McCain would be playing Class D. For a week.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

current Republican Party don't operate that way, perhaps because they can't.

Jeffrey wrote: "We just have to shed some dead weight. (Hagel/Snowe/Collins, etc.)" This meets your point 6: "If a player doesn't play up to expectations he is replaced." And there, you both might have the same problem with the GOP. You recall all too well Liddy Dole's recent dalliance with the departed Linc Chafee. You see, the party apparatus isn't built for electoral retribution, but some legislative discipline would be nice. (That being said, keeping the Maine girls was something of a feat.)

Now, chances are that these votes were cases of political posturing, as we all "know" that the President will veto this language. Why didn't McConnell and Lott stop this nonsense in the Senate? Perhaps like the House leadership, they want the Democrats on record as having supported this "fatally flawed" nonsense.

Shucks, I don't even have a problem with that. My problem - in general, not specifically with this issue - is that #1 through #5 are not seemingly doable either.

Specifically, I'm tickled Chafee is gone. His liberal Democrat replacement won't vote against the "Republican agenda" any less frequently than Linc did. I have no problem living with the girls from Maine or even Specter, although in the case of Specter it would have been nice for somebody to lay out the ground rules a little more specifically relating to moving nominees out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor.

Hagel and Smith, especially Hagel, should be dropped into life's political shredder. There is no fate too bad for them.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

There is going to be so much coming down the pike to fight and vote against it won't be funny. I suppose that since the President is obviously going to veto it, they figured they'd try to stop the bleeding somewhere else.

I knew that if/when the Dems got into power it would be a nightmare. Too bad I was right.

Seems like we're all kind of waiting for them to pull out of it. The "old pro's" like McConnell and Lott are doing their best but the Dems have a way of smearing and placing at an impasse anyone who is effective.

So, keep your eye on Lott and McConnell. And pray the nightmare ends soon.

Incapacitated Senators are traditionally given the courtesy of having someone from the other side of an issue sit out a vote.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Nelson was the deciding vote that got the Dems to 50. With one guy out, there couldn't be a tie for the VP to break if the Repubs had one vote or 49 votes.

He's jealous of the great media and all the attention that Okinawa Jack has been getting.

That and he's dumb as a box of rock. (Singular, two rocks are smarter.)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

"Iraq does not belong to the United States." Why are you all so intent on staying there indefinitely? This bill gives Bush a full year and a half to supposedly "win" in Iraq. Didn't he say just two months ago that we should know if the surge is going to work by November? If so, why is the 2008 date so horrible? If Iraq is stable, we leave. If it isn't, there isn't any more we can do.

stupid so you can't see that if we give the bad guys a date, they just hide until the day after the date.

I have never seen such a mindless, spineless, blathering movement of people as those who are demanding that we just surrender and leave.

Pathetic.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

It actually will win the war. 18 months of no violence could cure the ills of Iraq. In fact, that is the whole point of the surge strategy - bring some stability and peace so people believe in the cause.

Is it so bad to let the Iraqi's know they better get their sh*t together and in a hurry?

Face it, the US is going to be out of Iraq after the next presidential elections - either because the job is done or the new president pulls us out.

It's not about bad vs. good guys. There are no simple answers to complex problems.
We are in Iraq to solve each of these problems:
The Sunni are fighting against the Shia,
the Sunni are fighting against Americans,
Shia are fighting against Shia.
Common criminals are killing and stealing and adding to the chaos due to a weak police force.

It is irrelevant to lable one group as "good guy" or "bad guy" when it comes to Sectarian violence. Let's stop sectarian violence, period, or if we can't, let's stop wasting our time.

don't understand telling your enemy what he needs to do to win and exactly how long it will take him to win there is no need to discuss the matter.

[The only reason you are still here is because we are experimenting with being more lenient with our banning policy. If you ever explode like this again, you will no longer be here.

--Jeff, for the Mgmt.]

by being banned for vulgarity and lying about other posters. Who here called Reagan a vulgarity as you did?

I have no power so the previous sentence has no weight. But anyone who thinks wars are won by polls to me knows nothing about military history. Funny you bring up Lincoln, I guess you have no idea what his poll numbers were like during the Civil War. I guess you have no idea how "bungled" that war was for many years. I guess you have no idea that the sentiment in the North, from newspapers and the populace, was to quit (redeploy).

Also, this is not about whether the war in Iraq was a good idea. This IS about how some people on this site, and many in the populace have no idea what failure would mean. I will give you a hint, if we leave now, we will have to go back.

Molon Labe!

Spare us the KnownFacts(tm).

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Besides, when someone strings forty words together with hyphens to make phrases, it tends to break the page formatting and look ugly. :-)

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

and reference the phased withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam.

I was on the ground there when the 1st and 4th Infantry Divisions folded up their colors and left.

A couple of responses you received dealt with the enemy biding his time in Iraq until we leave - which is what the NVA did in Vietnam once it figured the Americans would be gone in a couple of years.

Two other things you might want to consider.

1) A pullout date will serve to undermine troop morale as engaging the enemy would be something to avoid. Who wants to die for a lost cause?

2)A pullout date will discourage Iraqi civilians from providing aid to coalition forces. The lesson of what happened in Vietnam is not lost on Iraqis. It's doubtful that Al Qaida types would provide Re-education Camps.

As a default you should assume anyone with that title is an out of control egomaniac. Then you can allow them to prove you wrong.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and you'll see how unpredictable things are, and how it is never a good idea to announce to one's enemy that you're leaving by a certain date (so if he can just wait a little longer, you'll disappear).

"Do the day's work."

So in the time that he's waiting, it gives the Iraqi government the so-called breathing space the Bush said Maliki needed to establish infrastructure and independent security. The deadline in the bill is to send a message to the Iraqis: "get your s*** together, because if you don't, we will not be there to clean up the mess." Have you ever thought that a solid, realistic deadline would motivate the Iraqi government to get its act together? As Bush said, our commitment is not open-ended.

It isn't open ended. Just don't put up a game clock.

Four years down the line, his word is not something we can trust.

Bush's word. Miss Nancy's judgment.
Bush's word. Okinawa Jack's judgment.
Bush's word. Harry Reid's judgment.

Looks like a slam dunk to me and I'm no friend of Bush.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

they're judgment has not been proven disastrously unreliable over the last five years.

differently.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

as hurting the country, not hurting something the country is doing.

beyond any doubt that your head is so far from the light, you couldn't view anything in any case...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

plain and simple.

He said this would be a long war as far back as Afghanistan.
What WMD ? Don't even think about it buckwheat. That works for people with Oatmeal between their ears who can't remember the excuse for a trash can they call their heads.

Show us where he hasn't kept his word. I have problems with this president. He has always been lacking the communication skills the job requires and is far too kind to those who would cheerfully disembowel him, but lying is not one of his faults.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

He assured us the PATRIOT Act was necessary for protecting the nation against terrorism, despite cries from critics citing the potential for abuse. But no, this was legal, necessary, and he gave us his word that this was in our interest.

What pops up in the last two weeks? Surprise surprise, FBI has been blatantly abusing National Security letters.

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

You have just proved that you can peck two paragraphs on your keyboard without ever engaging that 3 pounds of blood soaked lard between your ears.

Patriot act unnecessary ? I suppose by the same logic improved airport security is unnecessary. Well its over 5 years without a follow up attack. Numerous attacks have been thwarted.

Yes and what you refer to as abuse, the FBI refers to as mistakes. Please show some harm coming to a citizen from your "ABUSE". There isn't any.

I will worry when the FBI has the ability to get the same level of information that the bulk mailers use to offer me refinancing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If I am here in the morning I will try to find a humorous global warmer to tear apart.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/patriot.act.ap/index.html

"Citing the inspector general report on national security letters and his previous reports criticizing FBI reporting of terrorist cases, of weapons and laptops losses, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said, "Every time we turn around there is another enormous failure by the bureau.""

...

"Mueller said he had reduced the problem since learning of it in 2005 but noted that the warrant applications are very long and contain thousands of facts.

"I'm not impressed with your assertion that there are thousands of facts," Specter said. "That's your job. You asked for these powers; we gave you them. If these applications are wrong, you're subjecting people to an invasion of privacy that ought not to be issued.""

...

"In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during 2003-2005. He estimates there may be as many as 3,000 violations throughout the FBI that have not been identified or reported."

...

"The letters can be used to acquire e-mails, telephone, travel records and financial information, like credit and bank transactions. They can be sent to telephone and Internet access companies, universities, public interest organizations, nearly all libraries, financial and credit companies.

In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation."

you still have presented nothing.

P.S. What you call illegal domestic spying happened without the patriot act. Of course that wasn't on this presidents watch.

Google me this Bill clinton IRS audits, Bill Clinton FBI Files

Enough with you
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR200512...

Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.

...

The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the United States.

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities."

Rewind to a few months ago, and suddenly the FISA courts are allowed oversight. What a difference an election makes.

Is that you are free to spout the idiocy that you do. If the accusations you make had a shred of truth you would be clapped in irons, and I would be undertaking the thankless chore of freeing you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If so, do enlighten me.

A type II supernova couldn't enlighten you.

Show one instance of someone being materially harmed by the patriot act for the benefit of the administration
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

As a very frequent flyer, and a licensed pilot with access to secure areas on airfields, I have to say that airport security is frankly, ridiculous and ineffective.

Ridiculous because of what we learned on 9/11. Before then, hijackers demanded to be flown somewhere and demanded something political. After then, hijackers killed you all. Anyone hijacks a US aircraft now, and they would be overwhelmed by the passengers before reaching the cockpit.

Ridiculous in that one guy with some kind of explosive in his shoes, means that everyone now has their shoes x-rayed. Which wouldnt detect well-concealed explosives.

Ridiculous in that a foiled half-baked plot in the UK to smuggle liquid explosive components aboard, means that we now have to carry little clear plastic baggies with child-size toothpaste tubes to show to the nice TSA inspectors when said TSA inspectors fail to notice the half-liter of contact lens solution that I forgot was in my carry-on.

And ineffective because the minimum-wage (but whoo, now US citizen and federal employee) TSA are under-trained, under-staffed and evidently, remarkably incompetent.

And do you know how easy it is to get a ramp pass for a mid-sized airport? They do a criminal records check. I'd assume that any smart terrorist wouldnt have one. Then you watch a 1980s video on how to recognize suspicious middle-eastern men. Then they give you a pass. To walk out around the aircraft.

And why in heck's name do they security screen the pilots?

Your idiotic argument doesn't get any better by posting it again. I am, however, not surprised since the best tactic your side has is to keep repeating lies and inanities as though they were either truthful or mattered.

Take it elsewhere. We don't suffer fools lightly around here.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I miss the older, tougher RedState

"Do the day's work."

Down here in the mud, some of us have no such "kinder/gentler" instincts. We've lived through teenagers.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

to leave Iraq, a conflict that has the potential to determine
whether our future generations can worship as they please or must worship who the terrorists decide we should worship.

Does anyone really think that if we had left South Korea years ago when that conflict slowed, that freedom would have any hold in that area of the world today?

If the threat to religious freedome to Western Civilization is why we can't leave Iraq is what's at issue, then we should have left secular Saddam Hussein in power.

Over and over the terrorists of Iraq, Afghanistan, the leaders of Iran, Hamas and others tell the world they are going to destroy America. Saddam was just another of them. What would leaving him in power have solved?

The original comment of our mini-thread said that the Iraq conflict can dicate who we worship in the future.
How simplistic is that? Al Qaeda has always had its main front in Pakistan and plotted 9-11 from Afghanistan. This is where the center of the war on terror is located. These are the places where we should have gone in the first place.
Saddam was in power for many, many years. Did he have any bearing in who our generation worshipped?
If Al Qaeda has become a relevant force in Iraq (which it wasn't before the war) it's because it would infiltrate any any Muslim country if invaded by a foreign power such as the US.

of the Presidents post 9/11 speech, when he specifically stated that this conflict will take a long time, engender many sacrifices, and find us ON MANY SHORES. That's a paraphrase, but the point remains.

What part of my comment is refuted by the fact that Bush said the war wold be fought in "many shores"?

Considering the fact that most lefties would scream in self-righteous anger NO MATTER WHERE we went after Afghanistan,I suppose that it would escape your attention that Mr. Pres. DID name Iraq as part of the Axis of Evil, prior to invasion. This set the stage for all the kooks to switch from "Afghanistan is GW's Vietnam", to "[insert country name here] is GW's Vietnam". The point is, you'd still be whining the way you've been throughout this thread, even if we'd invaded N Korea (which, if I read the lefty crybabies right, is still an evil dictatorship, until we attack; then, it'll be [insert President's name here] Vietnam, all over again). It seems, sir, that you won't be satisfied unless Bush declares the GWOT was all his and the 'neo-cons' fault, cooked up over a backyard BBQ in Crawford.
I'll hand it to you; you've got staying power; too bad you keep mouthing the same Dem/lefty talking points that have been refuted time and again.
What you, and the rest of the anti-war crowd don't seem to understand, is that you are bass-ackward in your worldview, and seem prone to selective amnesia. I stated it in another diary; all I hear from the left anymore is how 'we' need to have learned our lessons from Vietnam. Well, I'm still waiting for YOUR side to admit its mistakes.

take 16 months? Security and improvments may take 16 months, maybe less, and then a draw down could take place. We may only need some troops there but you propose letting them hold the ball and run out the clock like a BB game. No way to run a war.

Iran is making nasty little toys next door. Got a good Idea what to do about that? Head in the sand doesn't count.

and stop the saber-rattling. The Iranians are beginning to realize that their leader is a whacko and being way too confrontational on the international stage. Economically squeezing the country would bring these sentiments to the forefront and perhaps initiate change from the inside. Not all problems are solved by military confrontation

that the pressure the leaders are feeling comes from U.S. troops at their borders and our navy standing by is having an affect. It may embolden the moderates to over throw them. They are supplying Hezbos, Hamas, AQ and all sorts of fun lovers. You have to negotiate through power.

Both military and economic leverage are crucial in dealing with Iran. I would suggest, however, that we need to be extremely careful about how we display our military power. The tension is mounting with the British soldiers captured and recent sanctions through the U.N., and we should be careful not to back Iran too far into the corner. Steady pressure is going to resolve this one. But I fear the potential for a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident which would set off an international crisis when there need not be one.

We've been in an "International Incident" in the middle East for decades. This current "hot war" is only the most recent stage. Did you spend the last few decades under a rock?

will not be hurt by squeezing the economy, as much as you think. The Mullahs and their puppet President will still be living high on the hog (so to speak), while the people WE WANT TO RISE UP will start thinking America sucks for starving them. Wake up.

You are an ignorant twit.
Please go back to the pleasures I am sure you find with your Kos Koolaid Kids.

when I was in school but this is March 2007. The supplemental sets a deadline of March 31, 2008.

From the bill:

The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq

In most places that is 12 months not 16, but YMMV.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

the poster was thinking of the House bill, which was closer to 16 months. Still, timetables are a bad idea, either way. Unfortunately, the lefties will never understand their own lack of logic.

Thanks for the laugh.

for over four years, and look where its gotten us. It's about time we begin to put a definitive end to our occupation there and let Iraq be the sovereign, independent nation we promised them when we invaded.

Millions of Iraqis have been displaced and are already refugees. That is our doing.

of the Democrats continually sending their message to the terrorists that if the terrorists will just keep up the pressure, the Democrats will be be able to force our defeat.

Who are you to tell them that we should be leaving for their sake? Last I checked, the government there has not said one word to us that they want us to leave. Your saying that we should be leaving because of their sovereignty is bogus on its face, because that's not what they want!

So why do you want us to do the opposite of what the Iraqis want, if you're so concerned about Iraq?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

he completely owns the war. He will have vetoed a bill that gives the funds to continue his venture in Iraq.

Bush has always owned the war.

.

History will not fault the Democrats for wanting to withdraw U.S. resources in a bungled disaster. History will fault the Commander in Chief who so mishandled the effort that we are even in a position to talk about Iraq today. Honestly, why do you put so much trust in an Administration that has been wrong about everything? Just because they say, "trust us this time, it'll be different"? I, for one, am fed up, and so is the greater part of the country.

Congress can wish for whatever it wants, but the US Constitution provides for only one Commander-in-Chief.

At this moment, the current C-in-C is ignoring the polls and people like you and will veto this surrender bill as soon as it comes to his desk.

You've packed so many unsupported statements and presuppositions of the standard set of left-wing talking points, is there an actual human there or are you a robot designed to generate dKos posts during lulls?

Frankly, Moe may be being more patient with trolls like you but I'm losing mine.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

this war is amazing. Lets take our marbles and go home because it is hard and expensive and bloody. This could well be the last best chance we have to stop these killers before they obtain nukes. Once that happens you will have to keep backing up untill there is no where else to retreat. Then you can climb in a hole and pull it in behind you.

own it now. God you are stupid.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

How do you define victory in Iraq?

We took out Saddam, we let them establish a democratic contstitutional structure, and we have been training and improving their security structure and their economic structure almost four years now.

That's a pretty significant victory to me, in that you can't ask for much more from a military. Our military kicked Iraq's military ass in the invasion, and held off the opposing forces long enough to establish a government, and spent a lot of time, money and lives improving the infrastructure and training up the government troops. And did a magnificent job.

But, after four years, this hasn't been enough to turn Iraq into the moderate democratic state we thought it might become. While many of the Iraqis were thrilled to see the Saddam regime deposed, they are against our continued occupation.

You can ask the US military to achieve the militarily impossible, and somehow they will do it.

You can't ask them to achieve the politically impossible.

If we remove the troops, Iraq is going to be a violent mess. But, politically, I think Iraq is going to be a violent mess if we remove them in 2008 or in 2015, or whenever.

Let's give our troops their due by acknowledging that they did everything possible to win a military victory and impose a military peace, and did it well and heroically.

But, when they withdraw in one year or in 10 years, if Iraq descends into anarchy or becomes a failed state, don't blame it on the military. And don't blame it on the people who think the military can do incredible things, but can't magically make a profoundly troubled region into a beacon of stability.

for answers then look for them on the internet from Iraqis who live in Baghdad. Do not rely on talkingpoints and NYT for answers.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/baghdad_report_taking_a_breath.php

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

to Aplomb
"Let's give our troops their due by acknowledging that they did everything possible to win a military victory and impose a military peace, and did it well and heroically."

President Bush entered into the war under some false assumptions.

First, the President assumed that the Iraqi civil servants who ran the country would continue to run the country under the interim government. Unfortunately, Sadaam sent EVERYONE home, all the civil servants, the military, the police, everyone. This of course had been planned years in advance, Sadaam had known for 12 years that the Americans were coming, he just didn't know when. This is what caused the enormous power vacuum and caused the infrastructure to totally collapse. In other words this is why the water stopped running, the toilets stopped working, the electricity stopped flowing, the mail stopped being delivered, the banks all closed, the ATMs stopped working, the traffic lights stopped working...well, you get the idea. Imagine that you come home from work one day and your wife is complaining to you because the toilet won't flush, there is no running water to cook with, and there is no electricity. And you just lost your job because the President sent everyone home. And now your ATM card doesn't work. And you can't buy gasonline. And now it is the second day of your wife complaining, then the third day, then the tenth day. By about the second week of hearing my wife complain every day about all this crap you would be ready to blow yourself up.

Second, the President assumed that the Iraqi people would be so happy at Sadaam being gone that they would welcome the Americans with open arms. Well, this might have been possible, but the loss of all public services and the total collapse of the infrastructure, the economy, and the society, and especially the collapse of public safety made this impossible.

Third, the President assumed that the coalition forces would be fighting Sadaam supporter die hards only and they could be dealt with pretty quickly.

Fourth, the President assumed that the Iraqis would be able to make a well functioning democratic government in a very fast timeframe, which they have proven unable to do.

The President's big mistake in conducting this war was in not having contingency plans if the three key assumptions did not hold true.

The first assumption that the country would just keep running as normal, just without Sadaam, was shown to be false by about the second or third week of the war. I knew that we were in deep trouble when I saw the looting live on TV and Rumsfield acted like the looting was a big joke and said "well, in war sometimes there is a little chaos". The widespread looting showed a total breakdown of security and the social order. The contingency plan for this would have been to have had construction battalions, engineering battallions, MP battalions, special security battalions, and cultural laison officers standing by ready to step in and take over the infrastructure and public services and to supply security. This is what the joint chiefs recommended during the war planning days when they were asked what it would take to topple Sadaam. Patreus (spelling?) sees the necessity of this now, but of course he won't be given the means to carry it out.

The second assumption that the people would welcome the Americans with open arms was only going to happen if the people felt secure, which of course they don't because foreigners have been coming to Iraq in waves to make sure they don't feel secure. Patreus' plan addresses this issue also in directing American forces to protect the Iraqi civilians instead of themselves.

The third assumption was shown to be false by about the third month after the invasion. Foreigners sent to Iraq by al-Qeda, Syria, Iran, the Palestinians and other enemies of the United States are waging a war against the Iraqi civilians in order to sow as much chaos as possible and to ensure that democracy cannot take hold.

The fourth assumption was shown to be false about one year after the elections when the Iraqi government showed itself incapable of: 1) establishing provincial governments that can manage local affairs, 2) keeping extremists, milias, and death squads and those who support them or are supported by them out of the government, 3) building a police force and army which are neutral to sectarian conflicts and are free from corruption and infiltration by al-Qeda, Iran, Syria and other enemies of the democracy.

So, here is what victory in Iraq looks like.
1) The US sends specially trained social order, engineering and construction battalions to Iraq to take over the public utilities and the infrastructure so that the water runs, the toilets flush, the electricity flows, the garbage is picked up, the traffic lights work, the mail is delivered, etc. There has to be a very determined effort to make sure that EVERY Iraqi has access to electricity, clean water, sanitary sewer, telephone service, mail service, garbage collection and the other things that make for a modern way of life.
2) The Iraqi civil service is reformed so that the Iraqis can take over management of the utilities and public infrastructure.
3. The US sends specially trained security and police battalions to Iraq to give security to the Iraqi people. This might require a machine gun nest on every block. EVERY Iraqi has to feel safe to walk down the street.
4) The Iraqi government must be given the means and the arm twisting to build a security force that can replace the US security force noted in #3 above. This Iraqi security force must be free from sectarian bias, corruption, and infiltration by militias, terrorists, death squads, Iranian and Syrian agents and any other forces that are opposed to democracy.
5) All foreigners who are causing or supporting terrorism must be captured, killed, or thrown out of the country. This includes the handlers of these people who have been sent to Iraq by Iran and Syria. This might require the coalition to go to war with Iran and Syria in order to stop the problem of foreign intervention at the source.
6) The Iraqi government is cleaned up and anyone in the government who is supported by or supports anti-democratic groups of any kind have to be removed from the government. The US should be twisting the Iraqi government's arm very hard on this one.
7) The US has shown Iran and Syria through deeds, not words, that any more interference in Iraq's internal affairs will be met with harsh and swift action, and there are US military bases and well armed formations in Iraq to back up this deterrence.

I would also add that the infrastructure collapse was largely caused by de-Baathification and the fleeing of a middle class. Had our coalition allowed Baathists to hold their jobs, perhaps reconstruction would have gone differently.

Ive always loved this argument about what would victory look like. Well what would defeat look like? I'm sure defeat in Iraq will be very emboldening to the average terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, very bad for the average Iraqi, and horrible for the image of the united states as we fly away abandoning allies who fought with us and bled and died right beside us. about the only people i see benefiting is the political opponents of george w. bush.

Wrong again. The good news for you is that you are batting 100%.

Infrastructure problems had mostly to do with the fact - pesky things - that Saddam spent his oil for food money on palaces, military equipment and booze, not infrastructure.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

but it would be foolish not to acknowledge the problems de-Baathification caused further down the road.

I don't see where the money, military resources or national will to persevere until all of this is achieved will come from, but then again, I am more skeptical than most on this site apparently.

Money shouldn't be.

National will, OTOH, given the current level of sedition, and spineless, brain-dead, foolishness on the part of elected Democrats and the major media, is a problem. And has been since about an hour after these worthless pieces of crap decided to change their opinion about their recorded votes to commit troops. In a fair world, John Kerry, John Murtha and Chuck Hagel could be tried and executed.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

can't quit. Ever time we think we have it tough think of our military. They are pulling the heavy load. We must take care of the home front.

you have been around long enough to understand the point here. You don't suck, but there are a lot of "rinos" around these parts that do.

Where we may quibble is your 2nd para. Immigration, taxes, etc-all meaningless if we don't win wars...IMHO.

We're on the same team I think. Some on our team aren't serious, and these stakes are for keeps. I "think" you agree..

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

The President needs to make a prime time speech and shine a spot light on every part of this bill. I don't know if he can pull a Reagan with charts, graphs etc. but the most important thing Bush will ever do is get the people to understand what this bill means for our future. If the people get it then this turns around. He has to hit a home run, no ifs ands or buts.
Just picking apart the pork will get it started and then hammer the rest home.

Is impeachment and a constitutional coup.
They will go after the Prez and the VP in one push.
They will make sure we lose this war and then they will raise taxes to the moon.
And they will give the vote to everybody living in this country over 18 years old. Everyone.
And then they will 'regulate' the internet and make radio 'fair'.

John Edwards, for example, calls for a Universal Health Plan that would raise taxes only to the 3% of income-earning Americans (those making 200,000+).

Can you be more specific about the claim that Democrats want to raise taxes applies to the average American or even to most Americans?

It was only supposed to keep the so-called "super-rich" from ducking out of tax payments. Now look at how many people are subject to it.

It's always that way. Taxes get added and creep to take in more and more. See the phone tax for the Spanish-American War; back when it was instituted it was only a tax on the rich (who were the only ones who could afford phone service in the 1890s) as well.

And when John Edwards's Universal Health Plan inevitably sucks up more money than projected (as all gov't programs do), that top 3% becomes the top 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, everyone.

So how do you, or John Edwards, propose to cap expenses for his Universal Health Plan so that won't happen?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

You would rather just punt and whine when the great genocide of Persian on Arab and Perisan and Arab on Jew takes place.
I hope you can wring yhour hands well.
The cynical disgusting thing about your side is that you good Americans set out to destroy the bipartisan mandate to fight and win this war, as well as to destroy this Presidency. Your side did it for the shallowest and most cynical of reasons.
And you are very close to succeeding.
History will spit on you, even as you slimeballs are starting to more openly spit on the troops today.

First up, I can wring my hands well- I am a liberal
democrat. Hunter, I can't engage you on this issue
because you don't trust me. So I will only say I truly
wish we had remained united because, you are correct things
are going to be really bad in the whole ME when we leave.

Then you can look to Reid, Pelosi and Murtha for inspiration.
They are determined, full of Soros money, and abcked by moveon tools to force defeat here.
Murtha's lies and sedition led us to this bright path.
Your side's sheep went bleet bleet bleet and stumbled after them.

There can never be a national military effort with people like Pelosi, Murtha and Kerry in the Congress. Your party puts hardball politics and special interests (read unions) above national security. They vote to commit troops and then pull the plug.

Democrats are worse that treasonous...

You guys won't give a damn about the ME if you force us to leave. You won't shed a tear for a million or so dead Arabs and Kurds. Heck, you didn't care about the 5 million or so that were murdered after you engineered the pull out and canceled funding in Vietnam. They were just little yellow people. These will be ignorant brown people who haven't been able to get along for centuries anyway. And they don't even have polling places you can rig on election day.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I dare say that the American Republic will survive its own proper functioning.

Like it or not, the American people and their elected representatives are free to choose to leave a war, even if the readership here considers it a grave error and a shameful defeat. The military serves the wishes of civilians, not the converse, and we're seeing exercised in this political conflict the proper function of that relationship enshrined in the document said military take an oath to defend.

Sure, there are other systems that preclude this possibility, but I pray we never succumb to their temptations here. Now that would truly be defeat.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Good night.

There is nothing to defend.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

missed your address...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Bill Clinton ran his presidential campaign on a middle class tax cut. He then proceeded to raise taxes on everyone else too. Ever since the Mondale loss Democrats have lied about not raising taxes.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

is more rewarding than engaging a leftist tool on facts.
Even the budget the dhimmies are proposing right now contains huge tax increases.
Your defense, that Edward's ridiculous tax increases are *only* on the rich ignores a fact of modern dhimmicrat tax legislation - to use tax policy to exclude the lowest income Americans from any meaningful contribution to the naitonal budget.
The vast majority of taxes in america, thanks to lefty hacks, are paid by a small minority of Americans.
That is unequal and unfair. And unjust.
But that is par for the courrse of lefties.

Could it be because the Democratic Majority, held before 1994, kept "spending like drunken sailors" (or is it only Repubs who get tanked and waste money, on your planet?)

And yet he eliminated the deficit and the economy was strong during Clinton's tenure, with low inflation and low interest rates.

Neither inflation nor interest rates have been high throughout this President's tenure either but that's beside the point.

What I do notice is that you didn't see anything wrong with completely ignoring the fact that there was a GOP Congress in charge of the purse strings at the time.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

the deficit, only if measured under Enron math, was zeroed out in Clinton's terms. And that was only done because the Republican Congress passed some modest tax reform and mild welfare reform. Clinton did lead the way in slashing the Pentagon budget and reducing American military strength, at a great savings of both budget and readiness.
But the national debt went up every year of Clinton's two terms.
That means that in real numbers, the deficit never went away.
The Bush deficits are remarkable because in a time of war they are still a very small part of GDP.
They have also been shrinking in both real numbers and as a % of GDP.
I know this requires more thought than most lefty hacks are capable of or interested in, but there it is.

You wanted to know, I let you know, you don't like the answer, you move the goal posts.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

in progress in November of 2000. When Clinton was still President. The vaunted economy that Clinton built was based on companies - much like Clinton himself - whose most obvious characteristic was "burn rate", not "profit" or even "market share".

The "growing deficit" had nothing to do with Clinton's tax policy. He simply lied during the election. History will not be kind to the boy-who-would-be-President.

And for the record, I don't think history will be particularly kind to W either. But for entirely different reasons.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.