Redstate

Why can't you guys stop the rhetoric and start posting the problems on both sides?

Out of touch with the military? Doing a lousy job?

<image>http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/WMD_01.jpg</image&gt

http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_statement.pdf

This website, or its front-page at least, has turned into the same kind of elitism you're supposed to hate. There is nothing bad about the Bush administration. There are nothing good about Democrats. They're all whackos and we're saints, and when we look like whackos instead of saints, it's only because they (or their media) made them look that way.

And before anyone says it, I realize the image (that didn't actually work) is from ThinkProgress. That doesn't matter or make me a lefty -- the screenshot is from the actual 9/11 Commission Report.

I'm fed up and disappointed with the amount of political inbreeding that is being done here. It's like a circle of denial and approval among one another, and the half of it isn't correct or only speaks to the "good" side of the story.

You're just an apologist for Dems and Republicans who actually believe in Republican ideals.  Get over yourself and stop pretending to be what you are not.

The are a disbanded group hanging on to something that is no longer in their purview. Guys that have nothing better to do than prognoticate on things they no longer have access to.

What makes them the definitve authority anyway? Some bi-partisan comminsion is formed and everyone HAS to automatically embrace their answers? Since when?

solution to your insipient whine that would make everyone happy. Leave.

What have you contributed besides crapola like this.

When faced with the chairman of the DNC saying that he wants all USAR and ARNG troops out of Iraq immediately, which de facto means all troops as the regular Army hasn't had sufficient combat support or combat service support troops for independent operations since about 1973, all you can do is toss out some statement made by a handful of political hacks from a self-discrediting commission.

(A) the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,"

If you accept (A) as true, then it logically folllows that we should establish a plan for withdrawing as soon as possible (taking into account delays needed to save face and minimize the risk of civil war).

However, I'm very curious as to how Dean reached this "failure is inevitable" conclusion.  Unless he honestly believes that the Iraqi people do not want democracy...

Comparing Howard Dean to the French is a vicious smear.  Of the French.

whaat?!

Um, isn't this RedState.org?  When the Dems get a serious, well-considered idea, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it will be discussed here.

Until then, well, as they say, "You can't make this stuff up".

This is pure defeatism. The man has disgraced himself. He's right about one thing however, namely that we have indeed seen this before; the next logical step for him and his kind is collaboration with the enemy.

What have I contributed? Things you apparently don't agree with. I realize that means you would be happy if I left, but you know, it shouldn't be tha tway.

This entire site is ridiculous. A bunch of apologists and wordy, disingenous one-sided "reporting." Elitist opinionations, crying about the liberal media, and attacks on Dean, Pelosi, and the rest if the easy targets. That's it. I could set a bot to write this site and it would succeed marvelously.

I am more than likely going to stop commenting, but that will not change a thing that is wrong about this site. You talk about liberals being elitist... they are, but they have been surpassed. One visit to RedState.org will show the overseers of the new "correct" opinion.

It really is too bad that "no enemies to the right" has crossed over into the conservative community. The day when you start reporting on the wrong of everyone... not just your political enemies, as if this were a football game and you're cheering for your team... is the day that the regulars here re-gain their integrity.

If this site is too ridiculous for you I would suggest you start your own site!

Then you can engage in any type of debate you wish!  

Maybe you weren't around this site when Bush nominated H. Meirs. Maybe you don't see the numerous posts criticizing John McCain- right now the leading nominee for 2008. Maybe you didn't see the reaction on this site when the Republican House couldn't pass the $54BN budget cut bill.

I Guess the only thing I can think of as far as 'cheering for our team', is the widely held belief here that what we are doing in Iraq is right, we will succeed, and we and the world will be better off for it, regardless of what Dr. Dean thinks. I don't think anyone at Redstate needs to apologize for that and I hope it never changes.

if the Democrats knew anything, anything at all will do, just one d*mned thing, anything about matters military. But then again since they seem to know nothing at all about anything at all I shouldn't be surprised.

Kerry reverts to type and decides that US soldiers are now "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children; Dean, who unlike Cheney served two tours in Vietnam (just kidding), is a flaming military expert and understand the force structure to a "T"; Murtha has decided that the Army is broken and the entire Iraq mission can be managed "over the horizon."

And Joe Lieberman, about the only Democrat that knows or cares about truth can't get the time of day. Go figure.

is hosting the 1st Annual DNC/Al Queda Bake Sale in the Rotunda of the Capitol next Thursday.

There is plenty of disagreement here with the GOP establishment. You aren't reading very carefully if you think not. Some people are still bitter about the Harriet Miers battle.

The "lets all go down to the jihad" bumper stickers should be a fundraising extravaganza.  

haven't read very much posted here.

I realize that means you would be happy if I left, but you know, it shouldn't be tha tway.

Yes. I do. Read the site's mission statement.

That's it. I could set a bot to write this site and it would succeed marvelously.

Actually, you couldn't. Because it would require talent and knowledge. We've had scant evidence of either thusfar.

The day when you start reporting on the wrong of everyone... not just your political enemies, as if this were a football game and you're cheering for your team... is the day that the regulars here re-gain their integrity.

Thanks for your concern. Touching and heartfelt I'm sure.

There was a lot of that on Star Trek. You know; where the computer tells The Capitan or Spock or Scotty or somebody that "Failure is Inevitable" or "Failure is imminent". Maybe if Capitan Kirk were president and Spock was his VP everything will be all right in Deans world.

Is he a Buddhist. You can't have victory without failure.

This mans motivation escapes me. I mean on a truly spiritual level.

Just what is he selling and who is he selling it to?

I could not get out there and stab my country in the back in that manner. That's the kinda' salesmanship that takes old people for their life savings or sells a junker car (as is) to a single mother for more than she can afford because "It's in perfect shape!".

could have been produced by a bot.

contemplating. We noticed it when it went up.

I love Howard Dean and John Kerry! Can you imagine how much the Clintons would be kicking our ass right now If they still controlled the Donkey Party?

Kyle

that in a post using "French" as derogatory, you'd include a French borrowing--with the circumflex, no less! In that, I'd say you've outclassed most Frenchmen themselves.

The Vietnamese never coordinated with al Qaeda to kill Americans in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

After the Vietnam War, Vietnam didn't turn into a Terrorist Mecca.

I hope that Howard the Coward Dean, Pinko Kerry, and Hairy-Pits Hillary hold the line on their surrender now position.  It will make it that much easier to write off the whole democratic party as the party that wants to capitulate to terrorist demands.

First of all, it "...logically follows that we should have a plan for withdrawing as soon as possible..." in ANY military action where we are not planning on annexing the territory as part of the USA on a permanent basis.  The idea that applies only when your "A" is accepted is simply stupid.

In fact, if you accept "A" you don't withdraw, you surrender and beg to leave.  You have the opportunity to cut your risk to your surrendering troops by paying reparations to the conquering government.

"...delays needed to save face..." is the single most repulsive and reprehensible comment I've seen.  I won't comment further, I'll get banned.

"...minimize the risk of civil war."  Not even on the table.  Remember, we've lost.  Surrendered.  Been beaten.  Had our 160,000 mechanized troops with air support get their asses kicked by a few thousand raghead third-worlders with roadside bombs.  If we can't deal with them just how are we going to stop a civil war?  And since we're busy crawling out, how dare we risk one more American life to stop something that's already decided?  And by the way, if we could use our military to stop a civil war, why not just stay and win?

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

as far as I can tell, is forgetting that the meme is "victory". Everyone has to say this word over and over as much as possible. Dean has yet to get the memo.

Whoever can attach it to their proposal in the stickiest manner will, regardless of the proposal's merits, win. You saw this in Bush's Annapolis speech, which had the word on auto-repeat, and you'll see it for the Dems as well, whenever they get together behind a cohesive plan.

I predict we'll see "victory" on all the campaign signs and I'm sure at least one, if not both, of the parties, will have "victory" as a convention theme.

I hate these stupid meme wars.

A Short History of Recent USA Political Experience in Wartime

Can you say McGovern?  McGovern ran on an anti-war platform after the Democrats had hopelessly botched the Vietnam War, and lost to Nixon 520 to 17 in the Electoral College.  

No wonder the Liberals can't make up their minds whether they are pro-war or anti-war.  Deep down, Democrats are big time anti-war, but they would also like to win the Presidency.  Flip-flop-flip-flop.

why wait two years????  Get out now.  Why should someone be the last man to die for a lost cause (I think I'm paraphrasing Kerry)?

But, if it is true, and we can not further American interests by staying, Dean etal should be calling for Immediate withdrawal.  This sap doesn't have the moral courage to stand by his beliefs.  Why?  Cuz I'm sure the polls show that to be a loser so they throw in two years to make it more poll pleasing.

Lord, I just pray that Kerry, Dean, Pelosi,Murtha and company keep calling for America's surrender to a bunch of whacked - out, drugged - up, dirty nightshirt - wearing "insurgents".

When your political enemies are digging their own grave, step aside and let 'em dig. This is such a huge political loser for the dems. Talk about tone deaf and out of touch.

Saddam is going to use the Democrat Talking Points (Bush lied, war for oil, no WMD, etc.) as his defense in court, with former Democrat Attorney General Ramsey Clark as his mouthpiece. Holy crap, The Dark Lord Karl Rove could't have scripted that better Himself.

John "3 Fake Purple Hearts" Kerry - Hienz calling the troops terrorists. How many campaign commercials can the republicans make out of that?

This commentary is worthy of any prize from the top shelf.

Completely illustrative of the democrats duplicity in the whole matter.

elitist.

However warmly the opinions are expressed here, I cannot recall one that favors a few experts determining politicial policy rather than the people's duly elected representatives.

If you meant scorn, disdain, and contempt for liberals, well, yes, there is plenty of that here.

But if it is elitism you're seeking, you'll have to look to the Democrats.  It is in their ranks that you will find those who fancy themselves fit to rule the vulgar crowd from on high.

Even your own "Liar In Chief" acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  Ignorance is not Bliss. Wake up.

Enough with the name-calling.

I've never doubted our ability to win in Iraq, as long as we don't quit before the Iraqis are capable of defeating the terrorists on their own.

The doubts I did have were about the condition "as long as we don't quit before the Iraqis are capable."  The Democrats had a pretty good PR game obscuring their true desires, voicing generalized complaints about the difficulties of the war and Bush's integrity, but not overtly saying we should concede victory to Al Qaeda in Iraq. People who don't pay close attention to the news, and are rightly upset about American soldiers dying, might be susceptible to the delusion that Democrats were offering an alternative Iraq policy for defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq, but with less American casualties than Bush's policy.

If the Democrats attained widespread public trust as having a viable Iraq policy, "moderate" Republicans in Congress would lose their nerve and support Democratic measures to sabotage our ability to win in Iraq. This would lead to a vicious circle of more bad news from Iraq to blame on Bush, further strengthening the Democrats' ability to undermine the military's efforts.

But thank God for Howard Dean! Finally the pro-defeat extremists that dominate the Democratic base have pressured their leaders to speak up for their beliefs. They believe our defeat by al Qaeda in Iraq is inevitable (and maybe even desirable), and the Democratic politicians can no longer run from that truth.

Now the debate between Bush and the Democrats is do we continue fighting to victory, incurring tragic losses as the price; or do we accept defeat and pull our troops out as fast as practical. This is a debate that even a PR challenged guy like Dubya can win.

Winston Churchill recounted that after he heard Japan and Germany had declared war on America, he slept his calmest sleep since Britain's entry into the war, because for the first time he was absolutely sure of victory. Howard Dean's performance has given me a similar comfort.

Worth the effort, etc.

Toodles.

Howard Dean is the perfect man to lead todays Democratic Party. It speaks to the Democrat's

 mental and moral depravity that they would enthhusiasticly support a man who was knowcked out of the Democratic Primaries for being a crazy, screaming, psychotic as well as a pinko commie.

PS This is my first post.

Churchill: We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Dean: We have reached the end.  We will not fight on in Iraq, we will not fight on in the Middle East, we lack confidence in the strength of our military to win this fictitious war.  We will defend America, as long as the costs are not too high, we shall not fight them in an unpopular war, we shall not fight them if Europe disagrees, we shall not fight them until they attack us first, we shall only fight them for a set amount of time after which we will surrender.  Even if the nation of Iraq, which I do not for a moment believe, proves to be progressing into a friendly democracy, we will continue to attempt to score politcal points and carry on the struggle against the American war effort, until a nondemoniational secular diety allows us to assume a secondary role in world affairs to Communist China and Islalmofascists.

War time leaders with different aims...

hear?  It is like, 'hey let's blame the CIA for the "bad intelligence" on the Iraq war.  I heard Tenant say before the Senate hearings on the so called "bad intelligence" that he and other intelligence officials warned the administration that claims of WMD were totally unsubstantiated.  Then during the 9/11 commissions hearings he was suddenly being a good soldier and taking the wrap or was he just lying the first time?  Who knows.  All I know is that Tenant was awarded the highest award in the land by the President.  Either the President awards incompetance and liars or he was thanking him for being a good soldier and taking the wrap.  I don't know which it is but I do know that he stepped down in the middle of a war during an incumbent President's election year.  Hmmmmmm - It would be great if people learned to think for themselves once in a great while.

The only problem with quoting Churchill is working out when to stop.

No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war -- the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand's breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutiliated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, bound together with every scrap of their life and strength, were, according to my lights, twice or even thrice the force of their antagonists. No doubt it would take a long time. I expected terrible forfeits in the East; but all this would be merely a passing phase. United we could subdue everybody else in the world. Many disasters, immeasurable cost and tribulation lay ahead, but there was no more doubt about the end.

    Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.

I agree, Mr den Beste.

operating a demo/media Talking-Points-O-Matic™ in continuous loop mode makes one appear to be devoid of all rational thought.

Not only are the Dems disagreeing with each other, apparently they are disagreeing with themselves. Mickey Kaus on the latest Democratic internecine battle, Murtha vs. Murtha

Redacted All Absurdum

By Mickey Kaus

Updated Monday, Dec. 5, 2005, at 10:23 PM ET

Murtha vs. Murtha:  Rep. Murtha on the prospects of an Iraqi civil war:

[T]here's a civil war going. We're caught in between a civil war right now. Our troops are the targets of the civil war. They're the only people that could have unified the various factions in Iraq. And they're unified against us. --ABC's This Week, 12/4/05

[W]hy should I believe what the CIA says about what's happening in Iraq, that there's going to be a civil war? First of all, al Qaeda was wrong. It was wrong on the nuclear stuff. It was wrong on everything they have said over there. So why should I believe that there's going to be a civil war? --same show, a few moments later.

Read the whole thing it's priceless. If you wrote this stuff no one would buy it.

all that they hear. It is amazing especially since Dean's lips never moved at all. Fantastic.

next is Dean and Kerry will fly to Pakistan for a meet and greet whirl-win tour with the terrorists stopping only for photo opps at anti aircraft emplacements. Sound familiar?

Or since we were against it; we're for it now.

That really keeps 'em guessing.

...of mine is the incessant denigration of the French as "surrender monkeys", capitulators, defeatists, etc. They suffered several hundred thousand casualties in a few weeks time battling German invaders in World War II, and experienced a level of heartbreak I can scarcely imagine seeing their country occupied and violated by fascists. They also maintained an admirable resistance both at home and abroad in many of their colonies. And keep in mind that just a generation before they lost 1.4 million in WWI. Try to imagine every 30th American dying in war and you can perhaps glimpse the motivation for weariness with armed conflict that's common in Europe.

Poorly led? Absolutely. Inept on the battlefield? Hard to argue with. Can't quite field a working aircraft carrier? Guilty. But they love their country and a great many fought and died for it. If you're going to villify people based on their countries' performance in WWII, rip on no-shows like the Swiss and Swedes.

Okay, back to Darth Dean...

|      |

 \ O /

   |

   |

  / \

  | |

  | |

Re: "the single most repulsive and reprehensible comment I've seen.  I won't comment further, I'll get banned."

Apparently you aren't old enough to recognize the fallout from Vietnam, Carter's impotence with Iran, Reagan's panic from Beirut, Bush Sr.'s fear of pursuing Hussein, Clinton's scramble out of Somalia...

Everyone of these shows of weakness was seized upon by the likes of Bin Laden to properly label the US a "paper tiger," thus emboldening him to escalate his attacks from the Cole, African embassies, etc., all the way up to 9/11. The fact that YOU can't grasp the need for the US to avoid any show of cowardice towards the Islamists, is... well just plain amazing.

Displays of cowardice inevitably lead to greater casualties.  Thank God people with your weak stomach aren't running this war.

Re: "The idea that applies only when your "A" is accepted is simply stupid."

If there is a chance of victory, you do not plan to withdraw "as soon as possible."  Read that phrase again: "as soon as possible."  See, if you intend to win, you plan to withdraw "when we win."

Now where did I say that we should "only" (your genius word) withdraw if we are resigned to failure?  

You do know that we occupied Berlin for just a couple years after WW2, and we did not withdraw "as soon as possible," don't you?

I guess reading comprehension ain't your strong point.  Perhaps you should direct your rage towards getting your GED.

True, France has suffered at times in its history, and a few of the times the suffering wasn't even of its own making. And there are many nice and talented people in France, I'd even say you could probably find something to like in most of them on some personal level. Big deal, that's true about human beings anywhere - Syria, North Korea, ...

But with a culture so sanctimoniously condescending toward us ignorant Americans (except the few of us smart enough to know that America should strive to be more like Europe), I see no reason to forego the fun of heaping some well deserved ridicule on that declining excuse for a nation.

But they love their country and a great many fought and died for it.

They love their country, in their own way, measured by how much they despise countries that have surpassed them. And the lesson they learned from the French that fought and died for their country apparenly is "No way we're going to do anything that stupid again!"

I have a small bit of French ancestry, and am thoroughly grateful my ancestor had the good fortune to get out of that miserable country. But I shouldn't get too serious about it. A few links:

The Complete Military History of France

Famous French Victories

Our Oldest Enemy

I agree, Churchill's words always leave you wanting more. I didn't have that passage at hand when I referred to it. It was a pleasure to read.

The Democrats are doing themselves huge damage. I have been one most of my life, but voted for Bush in 2004 with pride because of the Democratic left. I say this: People will remember what Dean and Murtha and Kerry have said over the past two weeks. It crossed a line; its the kind of thing you remember. 'Broken.' 'Defeated' 'Terrorizing women and children.' Now many more of those swinging centrist voters will know for sure the Dems are not to be trusted with the defense of the country. They have demonstrated it very clearly now and shown just how dangerous they are.

for your reply. I know we sometimes go overboard with the surrender monkey thing, but the French are the worse sort of arrogant jerks. I had to do a big project with a French engineering firm and could not stand their condescension and chain smoking (whats up with that!).

  Let us not forget that all of the modern worlds worse ideas, Socialism, nilhism, eugenics, originated in France.

if they dont remember, we will remind them.

I'm not sure those are representative views. The elites in France have made snooty dismissal of America a sport, but the general populace has a great deal of interest in and affection for America, a bit like the difference in opinions between Harvard grads and Walmart shoppers here in the US.

I've found the place charming and quite enjoyable and always been impressed with how well I've been treated there. In small-town France, I recall walking through a mall and being struck by how familiar it felt, a stronger feeling than I've encountered anywhere else in Europe. I remember, too, streets named specifically for the date of liberation by US forces and locals delighted to see Americans.

The culture's different, but worth getting to know on its own terms.  I'd recommend the book French or Foe for an interesting introduction; here's an article by the author that gives you some synopsis.

I'd add telemarketing to that list, and one's our fault. ;)

in our spirited defense of the French let's not slide into revisionism

They suffered several hundred thousand casualties in a few weeks time battling German invaders in World War II, and experienced a level of heartbreak I can scarcely imagine seeing their country occupied and violated by fascists.

Generally accepted estimates are:

KIA, 1939-40 War: 92,000

KIA, Free French, 1940-45: 58,000

KIA, Resistance: 20,000

KIA, Alsatian French conscripts KIA w/German army: 40,000

KIA, Vichy France, 2,500

POW Deaths, 40,000

for someone to base their entire diary entry on phrases generated by someone as insipidly vapid as anchor John Gibson ("surrender monkeys"? For crying out loud, that is such a "September 12th" kind of phrase! :-) ) Does it ever occur to the starboard end of the right-wing that roughly 50% of the U.S. population voted for Kerry last election, and that the vast majority of these people have children, spouses, friends, students, in Iraq today or at some time in the past couple years?

occured to us:

50% of the U.S. population voted for Kerry last election, and that the vast majority of these people have children, spouses, friends, students, in Iraq today or at some time in the past couple years?

And for good reason. Statistically it can't be true but more to the point, if in some bizarro universe it were true you certainly have no data to prove this nebulous point.

here's something interesting that I saw once.

My grandfather organized and built military cemetaries in WWII and the Korean War. In France, he built the cemetary in Epinal. Every American soldier buried in Epinal had been part of the force that liberated the town. A few years ago I was traveling through France, and happened to visit Epinal on Memorial Day.

The town had organized a solemn parade that ended in the cemetary, where every person laid flowers and wreaths on every stone. The cemetary itself was immaculate. Every blade of grass was trimmed perfectly and every stone was shining white and new.

The people of this town are still so grateful to us that on OUR Memorial Day they remember those that fought and died for them. It was a very emotional day for me.

for Kerry does not represent "nearly 50%" and I am being "statistically nebulous"? You don't work anywhere close to money, do you?

will serve you well. If you don't read my posts, at least take the time to read your own.

You said the "vast majority" of Kerry supporters "have children, spouses, friends, students, in Iraq today or at some time in the past couple years"

Simply booshwah. Can't be true under any circumstance.

positive of Iraqis wanting Democracy and the negative of our being in Iraq spawning more terrorists doesn't tip in our favor.  Especially with the way this administration has refused to make any strategic changes.

   

of Democratic voters have friends, spouses, children, students, who either have served in Iraq or are returned from Iraq? What planet are you living on? We've rotated roughly 250,000 soldiers, sailors and marines through Iraq over the past three years. I doubt there are even very many people in this country who don't have at least one RELATIVE who has served or is serving, but I'll play it safe and stick to the original database.

mouthbreathers, talk me through this.

How do you know that we are "spawning more terrorists?"

In Iraq, it objectively can't be true. We know the number of foreign fighters has plummeted in the past year and we know the remainder is drawn from a small demographic segment of Iraqi society.

Internationally, I find it hard to believe that there is any evidence that we are creating terrorists faster than they were being created prior to 2003. Those persons involved in the attacks on Madrid and London were immersed in radical Islam long before their attacks.

What "metric", to use the popular term on the left, are you using to substantiate this rather incredible claim.

In fact, I don't believe the "vast majority" of any demographic can make this claim. For the rather incredible claim that "most" of a minority of the voters could have a relative who is even in the military much less serving in Iraq.

59,000,000 people voted for Kerry. You are claiming that over 29,000,000 of them have a relative who served in Iraq. Actually, your claim is more specious than that as most people don't think of a bare majority as being "most" Think this through carefully. In a best case scenario, each and every one of the "250,000" troops you mention would have to have 100 relatives who voted for Kerry.

Of course, you ignore the 62,000,000 Bush voters "most" of which presumably have a relative in Iraq also.

On, in addition, each and every soldier who served or is serving in Iraq would need another 100+ relatives who voted for Bush.

It can't happen. It is just impossible on its face in any meaningful sense of the word "related."

but I'll play it safe and stick to the original database.

Original database, indeed.

But we've come to the end of the line here.

You are a b.s. artist and sadly a very poor one. That's too bad. We have need of good b.s. artists. We have had a bumper crop of crappy ones.

So far your contribution here has been to ask extraordinarily stupid and uninformed questions. And I am not talking about this particular exchange, though it was definitely stupid and uninformed it didn't rise to the level of extraordinary.

I'm sure that you are considered a glowing intellect in some quarters but here you are just dead weight.

And take all of your "foxy" little friends with you...foxyloxy, desertfox, whathtefox, foxtrot et al.  We get it. You don't like Fox News.  Why are you wasting your time here and sullying the good name of Francis Marion?  Are you going to try a little chickenhawking next, now that you have established for us that it was a close election and that Kerry lost despite a massive, unprecedented turnout of 140 million Kerry supporters? No wonder people had to wait in line for hours at the polls!  

BTW,the phrase is "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and John Gibson did not "generate" it.  

reticent to use insurgent because I thought Republicans didn't like that term.  I'm using the number of attacks as my "metric".  

...banning foreign words from our language.  If a French word serves our linguistic needs, we incorporate it into our language.  We're multicultural like that;)  

visionary.  Listening to him is like listening to the wind blow

that an increase in the number of attacks means an increase in the number of insurgents?

Another great demonstration of why the idea of a metric is just bullhockey.

Which is more indicative of a thriving insurgency? One attack by fifty men or 10 roadside bombs by the same guy? Because that is largely what the number of attacks is indicating. In late 2003 through early 2004 it was not unheard of for 50+ insurgents to mass for an attack. They don't today.

Do you know what constitutes an attack?

You drive down a road and pass a roadside bomb and it doesn't explode, that's not an attack for the sake of metrics. On the other hand you drive down a road and pass a roadside bomb and see it and report it, that does constitute an attack. So right off hand you should be able to see that 1) detecting attacks via improved training and 2) reporting attacks to higher headquarters drives the number of attacks being recorded. It has nothing to do with the actual level of enemy activity.

And, FTR, I don't object to the use of the word insurgent.

While it's true that 48% of the American people voted for Kerry, polls among the active military showed that over 80% of them voted for Bush.

After Kerry's disgraceful treatment of soldiers in Vietnam before the Senate in 1971, any current troops who knew Kerry's history would know that Kerry was for "cut and run". Those who have the most to gain by "cut and run" (getting out of harm's way) didn't want to. They probably know something that those who only listen to the MSM don't--we're WINNING the war in Iraq.

After all the cars burned in French cities recently, maybe the French have become more hawkish against terrorists than Howard Dean.

Howard Dean's comments were particularly well-timed, to add to his resume for a new job. Since many of Saddam's defense lawyers walked out yesterday, Dean is ideally placed to become assistant defense counsel to Ramsey Clark.

After all, didn't Dean say that Osama bin Laden had to have a fair trial? Why not Saddam? ;)

First of all, since your original comment was satirically aimed at Howie, my comments are related to him, not you.  Sorry if you misread that (or if, heaven forbid, I didn't make it clear).

Vietnam, Iran, Beirut, Somalia and Gulf 1 are the precise reasons for my opinion that said comment was "repulsive and reprehensible".  It is the conduct that got us into this mess in the first place.  And, I might note, it seems to be the foreign policy standard for the Democratic Party.  As I recall, with the exception of Gulf 1 and Beirut they authored the remainder.  I am willing to quibble somewhat about Gulf 1 because stopping at the border was charter Bush1 made with the UN and the coalition.  A bad bet, but it put the coalition together.  Beirut on the other hand was an unforgivable moment is Reagan's history.  The Marines wanted to pursue and they should have been allowed to.  With reinforcements.

You misread my comments and assume a weak stomach.  I was on Barry Goldwater's side when he was asked how long it would take him to win the war in Vietnam.  His reply worked out to "about a week".  If I have any criticism of our current military strategy, it isn't that we aren't killing too many people, it's that we haven't killed enough.  (A rough statement of policy, not a license to nuke Baghdad.)

I remember the Democrats kept telling me that if I voted for Goldwater there'd be a war. Well, I voted for Goldwater and sure enough there was a war.

I've learned my lesson; if the Democrats say it it must be true :-)

First of all, my comprehension is just fine.  It's my communication that suffers.  It's probably the result of an engineering degree.

My "stupid" withdrawal comments are aimed at the concept being fronted by Howie and Murtha.

they don't have friends or acquaintances either.

Case in point.  Me.  Our oldest just retired from the Marine Corps.  We are conservative, evangelical household.  Josh graduated from HS in 2000.  He was FIRST graduate from his HS of 3,500 students to become a Marine.  (His recruiter came to graduation as a guest of our family - in those gorgeous dress blues - and got dissed by other parents.)  We didn't know anybody with a son in the Corps.  None of the nephews were military.  None of neighbors.  We finally found support thru on-line family groups to which we still belong.  (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Once a Marine parent, always...)

My point here is simple.  If there was little support in our circle of friends and acquaintances, there is a bunch less in the average Kerry voters circle.

they'd make up their minds. I'm getting confused if they were for it then against, it or against it then for it and when they changed their minds. It's all so confusing.

the tactics have changed doesn't mean the insurgency is being defeated.  If they have figured out that they can kill ten marines with one roadside bomb why would they mount a 50 person attack?  And if you prefer I will use number of American deaths and injuries in place of attacks, because that has also been steady, and is not subject to the ambiguity that attacks seem to be.

I personally don't think I agree that leaving right now is the best option, but it certainly is a valid point of discussion and not an attack on our troops.  To not have it on the table is to lose sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a front in a larger war on terrorism (a mistaken front in my view) and not an end in itself.  

You say

And if you prefer I will use number of American deaths and injuries in place of attacks, because that has also been steady, and is not subject to the ambiguity that attacks seem to be.

I just don't see how this can be reconciled or even meaningful.

From the meaningful standpoint, which is a more effective strategy, hunkering down in your base and having 0 casualties while the insurgents control the countryside (see France vs. Viet Minh) or aggressively patrolling and seeking out contact and suffering casualties.

From the reconciliation standpoint, I think you will note that the number of fatal attacks is down. The downside is that when one of the current attacks succeeds it results in mass casualties.

against a long term insurgency, as we should have already learned.  Which is why we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.  This is the problem with these types of wars.  We have to spend billions of dollars and use highly trained soldiers with hi-tech equipment to constantly patrol a huge foreign country.  They have to put a few wires into some explosive and drop it on the ground.

What will make this situation change?  We could have another 200,000 troops in the country and they would still be able to drop explosives on roads.

It isn't the one I'd take but you're welcome to it.

at all, but I will say that I do hope we can leave Iraq as a stable secure democracy, even if I didn't think we should have gone in.  

that is the correct attitude to have - a noble intention. Now can you imagine if all the people on your side of the aisle had the same intention, and got behind this effort with 100% unity? The insurgency would not last a day, and a great thing would arise in Iraq. Isn't that worth more than politics?  

that over 29,000,000 of them have a relative who served in Iraq."

You don't read very well, do you? I haven't made any such claim. You are right. This is apparently pointless.

evangelical family. I'm a progressive Democrat who voted for Reagan twice and Clinton twice. I've had five family members, out to first cousins, who've either served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or are going to be there within the next six months. I have at least a half-dozen students who have either been in Iraq or are going. I'm assuming that most other Democrats are just like me, and have friends, family, students, or spouses serving in Iraq or planning to do a rotation there. Frankly, I can't believe how silly this entire thread has become. I would have thought that anyone arguing that members of the other political party were interested in "disarming, disrobing" and whatever other goofiness wound up in the diary's conclusion would have been roundly rebuked by pretty much everyone, but apparently that was too much to hope for.

thanks, I really needed a chuckle...

I didn't actually vote for Goldwater, I was a mere tyke at the time. But my Dad did and always got a kick out of that little snippet and I guess it rubbed off on me. It has the advantage of being true :-)

I haven't seen any proof that this administration can achieve it.  I'm hesitant to throw my support behind ineffective tactics, which is a problem I think a number of Democrats have, even if they feel the way I do about staying there.  I think the democrats have learned that there only opportunity to get their voice heard in this government is through political maneuvering.  Maybe when both sides have a say in the outcome I'll be more comfortable with the whole thing.