Redstate

all the stupid comments he makes. Yet if the Republicans disagree with Murtha the MSM frames it to see like they are attacking his military service for weeks and weeks. The  double stardard is just not right

1980 unless one cares more about TV shows than winning elections and weilding power, thank God.

Others who got away with it:

kerry

gore

disgraced and impeached der schliekmeister

40 years of dem party control of congress

dukakis

mondale

carter

mcgovern

who's next

that the leader of the Democrat Party has decided to implement the French Withdrawal Plan: "Embrace defeat and nobody can force it on you."

We have to draw some conclusions from Dean's statement.  First, he either has no confidence in our military forces, or he doesn't want us to win and is trying to prevent victory by claiming early defeat.

When we consider the effect his statement can have on our servicemen and on our enemy, it is clear that Dean is either clueless, foolish, or intentionally providing morale-building propoganda  for that enemy in an effort to help bring about our defeat.

As leader of the Democrat Party, Dean speaks for EVERY Democrat who doesn't publicly repudiate his statement.  This isn't the military; every Democrat has complete freedom to disagree with his leadership positions.  Responsible Democrats need to step up and do so.

As long as we're lucky enough to have Howard Dean as the opposition leader, we need to make sure Dean is portrayed as either the clueless leader of a clueless party, or as the craftily duplicitous leader of a party that's dedicated to undermining national policy intended to protect the country for the sole reason that they aren't the party making the policy, and that the number of soldiers who die in the process is of no concern to them.

Dean and his supporters nauseate me.

The last name in both instances is "Clinton."

Yeah, I saw "der schliekmeister," but he hasn't been disgraced in the eyes of the majority, and the impeachment failed.  The lack of disgrace proves the power of the press.

On your list, none of the entries were competent national politicians.  Even with the help of their willing accomplices, they still couldn't win (Carter was exposed by his first term, and he was deserted by the press).  Your point about the "40 years" was a good one though.  It shows the fight is being won and can be won.

Speaking of fights,

http://www.independencebowl.org/

I'm not sure how we got in, but Go Tigers!  (We'll have to be lucky, for sure, but Brad Smith can be PD good.)

why, after all this time, you still find this amazing. Been away on Mars or something :-)

Great points, and we regularly lose to Tigers of and for the battle for states rights John C. Calhoun home variety sans luck variety!

Ironically, my brother was a clemson tiger and now lives in KC, MO! Also ironic is that this battle features Tigers from Columbia and gamecocks from Columbia. And the term Chikin likin can be used no matter the outcome.

The ironies continue when one considers that SC declared its Independance from the batcheoler Tyrant james Buchanan due in no small part to Lincolns declared view of the Missouri Compropmise and vow to admit no more slave states which would ensure that the us seante would soon be majority anti south with the attendant tariffs.

As to the getting away I didnt include a clinton election per se since he and she won with the help of the msm

but did include the impeachement since even the msm couldnt stop that.

But, while I certainly agree with Bennett re the Death of Moral outrage in the late 90s, I think that not too soon after the senate refused to remove him, and continuing thru the pardons and then the gore snub and poll driven refusal to put him anywhere but in a black church to campaign,

and especially after 911, that despite non-consequence polls,

Clinton is a disgrace and could not win a national election, esp in a post 911 america.

One of my big themes here at redstate is to show how essentially meaningless are msm template  slanted and affirming weighted and between election pools vs elections that provide choices after informative campaigns.

more later

tired

"One of my big themes here at redstate is to show how essentially meaningless are msm template  slanted and affirming weighted and between election pools vs elections that provide choices after informative campaigns"

As you have noticed, my theme is that the bias of the MSM works (sometimes more effectively than others) to keep election campaigns from being informative regarding conservative principles.

BTW, I'm not only a Mizzou Tiger, but also a UMKC Kangaroo.  The wife's blood runs "Orange."  (Fullmer wrote quite an email, didn't he?)

I hadn't thought about the two Columbias fighting it out in Shreveport.  Maybe the winner can take over the "Columbia Journalism Review" and turn it into something more than an apologist for the leftist media.

As usual, Howard Dean is being lambasted and ridiculed for merely speaking the truth.  Our military leaders have let it be known, through Jack Murtha, that the course we are on now leads to failure, defined as unending chaos and quagmire.  Every day that our troops stay on the ground, chaos grows and the insurgency grows stronger and gains more legitimacy with the people of Iraq.  American troops cannot defeat the insurgency without obliterating most of the country.  Iraqis must win this war, and they cannot win it if the populace sees them as illegitimate puppets of the US. We have to change the equation from insurgents vs. the US to insurgents vs. Iraq, and do it as soon as reasonably possible.

Does this mean that Iraq won't have the kind of government that we had hoped they would have?  That's already a foregone conclusion.  Anyone who thinks Iraq is heading toward a secular American-style democracy is delusional.

You folks should take a hard look at what the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan did to its economy, its military, its position in the world.  By invading Iraq, we've given back to Al Qaeda what we had just taken away from them:  an entire country to use as a training ground for terrorists.  Bin Laden coudn't have asked for more.  Right now American forces spend all their time fighting "rejectionists", as President Bush calls them.  If we diffuse this situation by reducing our troop presence, we can concentrate on killing the real terrorists.

You folks should take a hard look at what the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan did to its economy, its military, its position in the world.

We heard this same tripe when we invaded Afghanistan, and it wasn't any more true then. Your Talking-Point-O-Matic isn't welcome here.

I did appreciate, however, the sheer force of will it must have taken to post this nugget with a straight face:

Our military leaders have let it be known, through Jack Murtha

Priceless.

but chose to attend the more academically sound institution in Sherman ravaged Columbia, SC.

One thought that may bridge our themes. Thank God the msm is less successful in preventing campaigns that are sufficiently informative about the bancruptcy of modern liberal priciples.

more later

Our military leaders have let it be known, through Jack Murtha ...

I hope that the Democrats actually go around saying this. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written by a Leftist on Redstate.

I wonder what Howard Dean would have said in 1944 when 500,000 men went ashore at Normandy?

"Our presence in France is only inciting the Germans!"

"We have lost 9,000 men, and in 30 days still have not managed to secure terrain that Eisenhower promised to secure by the second day. This invasion is a failure!"

I'm sure the fact that, 2 years after the war ended in Europe, there was still an insurgency (and no sovereign government in Germany) would have brought howls of protest from the current DNC chairman.

The success (or failure) of any war sits squarely on the shoulders of the American public: you and me. If America's citizens are behind the effort - we win; if not - we fail. The DNC is trying to undermine our support for the war in the vain hope that they'll pick up a few seats in the House in 2006.

I think what Mr. Dean was really trying to say is this: "The idea that the Democratic Party will make any gains in 2006 if the war in Iraq succeeds is ridiculous."

I particularly like this point:

we're currently fighting the second war in Iraq.  The first was won right about the time President Bush declared an end to major combat operations.  That's about the time the second war began.  

Don't believe me?  Who's the enemy leader in Iraq?  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  Not the same guy we fought in 2003.  He doesn't have the same motive, doesn't have the same goals, doesn't have the same method of fighting as the last enemy.  This isn't a new war, folks.  This is (to borrow a phrase) a new front in the War on Terror.  

We should have hammered this point every time some democrat made squawk about the 'Major Combat Operations Are Over' Talking Point™.

'Our military leaders have let it be known, through Jack Murtha, that the course we are on now leads to failure,'

What the Dems (esp Pelosi, Reid and Dean) to go around saying this BS). That's all I really want for XMas.....

OH! And I call 'Shenanigans!' on Cowpunk's post

you should look at what WE have done in Afghanistan.

I guess Hillary set up a seance for Murtha so he could channel Gen. McClellan, but it was really Wes Clark whispering under the table.

Sometimes I wonder what is going through this man's head.

We conservatives keep denying it, but Iraq WILL become the next Vietnam if the President doesn't start leading the Republicans on a PR offensive over this issue.  

When I say "the next Vietnam" I don't mean "quagmire" (I've gotten to the point where every time I read that work I hear it as a sheep might say it - KWAAA-A-A-A-A-A-gmire).  I mean that it will be another war that will be won on the ground and lost on The Hill due to a defeatist attitude.  

The president needs to rally the forces and, just like the Murtha Maneuver, force the dems to eat thier words - they want metrics, give them metrtics.  Like how many kids are now attending schools, how many provinces are already under control of the ISF, how many tip calls the coalition receives each month, how many IEDs are found and detonated harmlessly, and how many bomb factories are found.

As long as the entire discourse on Iraq centers around the US body count, it looks to the voters just like Vietnam - a body count, a talking head intoning "the cost of war", and on to the Toys-r-Us commercial.

For crying out loud, we're winning the battle, it shouldn't be that hard to bring the message home.

With regard to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

OCCUPATION  Therein lies the difference.  The Soviets invaded and intended to occupy and remain as occupiers.  Afghanistan was to become a part of the Soviet state.  They made no bones about it.

You are right about Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.  They abrogated the Afghan economy, crushed it's state military and made every effort to absorb it into the Soviet state.

You've missed the part in Afghanistan & Iraq where we are working with the Afghanis & Iraqis to build a military that is capable of defending their - repeat THEIR - country.  I won't run down all the reasons that the military must be built from the ground up, you likely wouldn't understand any better than Bob Beckel, but it's more than a three month exercise in boot camp.

With regard to Afghan economy.  You missed the part about the booming Afghan economy and the signs that the Iraqi economy are on the way to recovery (real estate is booming in Baghdad & I'm talking about sales and prices not bombs!)

AQ in Iraq.  With respect to your comment about AQ gaining an "entire country to use as a training ground", you are living in an alternate universe.  While there are "safe haven" areas within parts of the Northern Triangle, there is nowhere in Iraq where AQ can do anything that requires more space than a meeting room.  Combined with the FACT that civilian tips concerning terrorist activity are going up exponentially is further reducing their ability to operate.  Virtually the only place left where AQ and their minions can operate with some flexibility is the tribal areas in Pakistan.

US colonial interests.  You missed the part of US foreign policy that says we will leave, and we will leave behind independent states.  You may not realize it but the US happens to have some history around the world when it comes to freeing people from dictatorships.  We come home.  If any country where we've ever had a presence formally asks us to leave, we leave.  If asked to help, we help.  As Colin Powell so eloquently stated in London, the only thing we've ever ask for from a country we've freed from tyranny is a small place to bury our dead.

Based on my fairly extensive contact with military personnel in Iraq, I can say that the Iraqis understand that.  It's Murtha and the NYT who don't.  But then they strain everything they see and hear thru the "HateBush" sieve.  

Will they have a "secular American-style democracy"?  No, nobody said they would.  They will have an Iraqi style democracy & since they've never had one, we'll have to wait and see what it looks like.  It's interesting that in the last survey of governments around the world (sorry I lost the link but if find it I'll post it) Iraq is more highly rated TODAY than any other country in the region for openness and democratic government.  It certainly won't be to your liking, but it has every chance to be a shining light to the oppressed people in the region.

Other.  There is lots of honest room to debate the war.  Whether we should have gone to war in the first place, although the current debate about lying or tilting intel is disingenuous at best, is fair game.  The conduct of the war is fair game.  There is much strategically and tactically that I would have done differently, but last time I looked, I'm not the President.  The idea that our military leaders are talking thru Jack Murtha ranks right up there with the idea that the Administration worked with Israel on the 9/11 plan.

The debate currently being fronted by Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, etal is simply dishonest and cowardly.  Am I calling those folks dishonest cowards?  Well, I'm saying their policy is dishonest and cowardly and you can draw whatever conclusions you'd like from that.

I think the bigger issue that we all need to be looking at is, "What is the objective in Iraq?"  If it was simply to remove Saddam, I agree, "that war" is over.  We won that one, for sure.

If the real objective/war in Iraq is to leave behind a stable presence in the Middle East, I would agree with Dean that the picture doesn't look so good for us.  Basically we've unleashed a fierce set of tribal and religious animosities that had been held in check by the previous malevolent dictator.  If we end up replacing him with a defacto dictatorship by Muslim fanatics aligned with Iran, and a permanent underclass of 5.5 million Sunnis who see no future for themselves other than constant destabilization of the ruling Shiite ... that's a terrible outcome for the United States.

Bush's father was right in 1991 and Colin Powell was right in 2002.  You break it, you own it.  Unfortunately, I think we have broken Iraq, and will pay the price in the form of a much destabilized Middle East for many years to come.

about the difference in they way the Iraq terrorist war is being perceived, as compared to the perception of WWII.

That difference:

The vast majority of the US population during WWII recognized that we were in a war that would determine our future existence as a free* people.

Today's leftists don't want to admit that the war against Islamo-fascism is every bit as determinative.  Thus, they are concerned about the need to provide lawyers for captured enemy fighters, not about getting every bit of intelligence they hold wrested from their sneering lips.

They care about making political points to the uninformed, not about winning the war.

You can fill in the rest of the concept as well or better than I.

*Don't forget that one of Roosevelt's four freedoms was "Freedom from Fear."

environment that allows Zarqawi to appear and thrive.  Way to go Bush.

I think there is a point to be made here.  Dean is right, to an extent.  So are you.  The question is what kind of war are we in?  You have listed all the ones that we won.  What are we left with now?

Our soldiers are still dying, and we find ourselves in what looks more and more like a civil war.  How can we possibly win that?

We are training the Iraqi troops, but I have to wonder what that means.  We certainly don't need to train them to use AK-47s.  What exactly are we doing?  Part of making a stable Iraq is making a stable army that is loyal to a stable government.  I think that is where we find the hardest part: loyalty.  The truth is probably closer to the fact that we have troops that are loyal to local militias.  There is no integrated army.  Each faction has its own.

Hopefully the elections will turn that around, but it will still take time.

Iraq is a place where AQ is free to meet and hold training exercises as long as they do it in a room.  With no advance publicity.

You note two utterly incorrect thesis:

Zarqawi [can] appear  Only on video.  With a disguised background.  Showing up in person will be cause for promotion for the person who was recently promoted to the #3 position.

Zarqawi...thrive[s]  Yeah right.  Are they able to do small scale terrorist operations.  Yep.  That requires a very small number of actors with little support.  It creates great headlines in the US, only because our media elites are complicit in their desire to see the US "lose" in Iraq.

Bush's invasion is what has kept Iraq from being an open training ground for terrorism like we saw in Afghanistan pre-invasion there.  If anything, the Administration's policy and invasion of Iraq has take ALL ability for AQ and friends to gather and train.  

If you think for one second that the rulers in Syria and Libya and even in Iran don't have serious second thoughts about publicly supporting terrorists with an invitation to train in their country you are in denial.  Libya gave up a nuclear program that was very far along, that NOBODY - repeat: n.o.b.o.d.y! - knew about.  Think the Libyan leadership got right with Jesus and entered a 12 Step Program?  (Hi, I'm Momar.  I'm addicted to WMD's and slaughtering infidels and jooooos...)

Like I said, back on your meds.  Or at least back to Administration/Israeli 9/11 plot.

to look.

Civil war.  Don't think so.  Without regard to Jack Murtha's idiotic opinions of the moment.  As a matter of fact (inconvenient things, those facts) people from all factions are entering the Iraqi military and police.  That is a factor, opinion of the NYT and Murtha aside, that will lead to more stability not less.

Training Iraqi troops means building an army from the ground up.  Training infantry is relatively easy.  Building an NCO and Officer corps takes years.  It takes five years to produce a Marine Sgt who can lead a PLATOON.  Training takes time.  With respect to loyalty, that is part of training.  Each faction, by the way, does not have it's own.  There are some militia groups, but they will fold into relative insignificance as the army gets up to speed.

The elections won't turn anything around.  They will simply reinforce what's already happening.

...cleaned up Salman Pak island and destroyed the environment that allowed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to thrive.  Way to go Bush.

So Zarqawi just "appeared"? I guess he was a golem in the desert unwittingly summoned by Bush or maybe just a flower seller in Amman driven to war against the crusaders.