Powered by TypePad

« Val, We Hardly Knew Ye... | Main | Christmas Card Ideas »

December 07, 2005


Rick Ballard

It looks like the caucus is now following the dictates of the Incoherent Policy Group to a T. I was getting a little concerned that the IPG misguidelines had been abandoned.

The Unbeliever

Let me see if I'm reading the statement by Pelosi's spokesperson correctly: the Dems have been saying for a while that they believe bailing from Iraq is the correct thing to do to "support the troops", who are allegedly tired/unarmored/getting slaughtered/whatever... but now they'll lobby to keep that from being their official position?

So is Pelosi therefore saying that the Dems' official position should be to not support the troops, even by their own definition of the word "support"?

r flanagan

My sense is that house seats are decided
district by district and as long as the
candidate himself is in tune with local
opinion he'll be OK. (94 seems to
be an exception )

Maybe the senate's a different story.

Bob Cleman

Everyone knew that Libs don't have the balls to fight...now we learn they don't have the balls to run either. Looking forward to big GOP wins in 06 and 08. Big thanks to Howie, Frankenkerry, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha.

Wilson's a liar

Well, when half the Democrat caucus is running for President (or Speaker), what should you expect? The only serious people in that party are the ones like Lieberman who aren't running for anything. The others are too busy measuring the drapes in the Oval Office or the House Leadership lounge to actually come up with a coherent policy.


Newsflash for the Dems:

That many Americans are tired of the war does not mean they want us to quit.

That many Iraqi's want us to leave does not mean they want us to leave NOW before the job is done. The majority of the Iraqi people from the beginning have wanted us to go home, just not yet. Thank you, now leave, wait...

That many Iraqi's in the army can fight for their own country does not mean the military commanders are ready to take full responsibility yet. It's not just grunts we're training.

Every time we've asked the Iraqi people to step up and do their part, they have. Don't shit on them.

The trial of Saddam Hussein is an historic event. Never before have the people of an Arab nation tried their leader.

And you are lying when you say Bush has no plan and that his policies have failed. You are simply terrified that we are winning and that Bush will get credit.


Amen (non-secular of course) Syl!!


I don't think Democrats would have to fear the wrath of the American people were it possible to have a rational debate on the matter. The American people want out of Iraq - that much is clear, and anyone who thinks either understanding or compassion for Iraqi citizens is driving this debate is wrong. Young Americans - of both right and left - are voting with their feet by avoiding the military and soon Congress will be faced with another insane appropriation needed to continue the madness. A rational, reasonable debate is needed... but the hyper-politicized right wing noise machine will make sure that is never possible.

Dean only said what Hagel has said, what most experts without an axe to grind have all said - there can never be a purely military victory. In fact, common sense makes this clear to anyone honest enough to face it. Rather than discuss this problem pragmatically, the right wing media chooses to whip their followers into a frenzy over any remark they can easily miscontrue.

The right wing is no more interested in victory in Iraq than the left wing is. The raw greed for political victory here at home is what is truly eating our government - and our society - from the inside.


Hilly still wins in '08. Nothing can stop the machine.


Oh, good grief...

...the left says something stupid and the right wing media is to blame for reporting it?


Katrina: therapy works.


experts without an axe to grind have all said

Experts in any field rarely all agree. If a subset of experts is chosen that all say the same thing, and the criteria for choosing the subset is not grinding a particular axe, that usually means they're grinding something else instead.


Katrina van den Heuvel I presume?

I guess you could call me a right winger. Personally I don't give a rat's behind who gets credit for victory in Iraq. It would suit me just fine if the dems and MSM would get behind the war...that would certainly help the troops and might save some lives. In fact one liberal pundit suggested not long ago that the dems adopt that position recalling how Bush I failed to gain any political advantage from winning Desert Storm.


The thing is, even if Dems decide to (ahem) correct course and steer a bit more towards sane national security positions they've already put themselves in the "I was against it before I was for it" box. Murtha's been on every TV for a over a week and has stirred things up so much my wife was asking me about a Time magazine article on him last week. Its too late to pull back - conventional political wisdom is already being set for 2006.

Hide and watch. I can see the ads coming already.


The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change

Yes, they're called parachutes.

Bail out if things go bad.

However, if things go well, try to take credit by claiming you forced Bush to confront the problems, problems he didn't want to address.

It's a nice plan on paper. Problem is that you've got folks like Dean and Pelosi and other hardliners who go off script. Not to mention those in the audience (Moveon, DKos, et cetera) who want to get in on the act.



So is Pelosi therefore saying that the Dems' official position should be to not support the troops, even by their own definition of the word "support"?

Say it with me - she was for supporting the troops before she was against it.


Katrina, Yourcomments are like thehurricane named after you
, full of hot air and self-destuctive. Talk to your felloe dems and tell them to get speechwriters with a coherent message. We in the right wing are merely reporting what your inept messengers are saying. Stop being soft on terrorism!

The Unbeliever

Close, SteveMG; but instead of a play (characterized by structured plotline, lines which are known in advance, and well-thought out blocking), I think there's a better entertainment-based metaphor for DNC politics at this point: abstract interpretive dance, complete with audience participation.

Watch the Dems as they twirl around the stage to music only they can hear! Feel the thrills as they execute elaborate leaps and poses at utterly random intervals! Nod sagely during the spoken word segments, in which the actors reveal why you are not allowed to criticize their interpretation of the subject matter! And for the low low price of your own sanity (plus tax), you too can interact with the performers as they meekly invite the spectators up on the stage to push, prod, or otherwise beat up anyone who isn't moving to their liking!

Someone print up tickets on recycled paper, let's take this show on the road...


I got an E-mail yesterday from Evans-Novak (is Evans still alive?) saying Bush had already decided to withdraw from Iraq. Hard to square that with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld speeches of the past week. But if you watched This Week with Georgie last Sunday and saw Cokie Roberts shake her head at the idea of winning you just know what the Washington elites are thinking...against a lot of evidence in my view.

They fail to take into account that Bush is more immersed in "Crawford" think than Washington group think.


It seems Tom is amazed! that there isn't a concensus opinion among Democrats on what should be done in Iraq (never mind that there is no similar consensus among the GOP either).

Iraq is a serious issue, and a serious problem. Of course we'll draw down significantly in Iraq next year, we have no choice. Will the security situation improve with say 75k US boots on the ground versus 160k? Neither I, nor Tom, nor anyone else knows the answer to that question.

But it rather ironic to see a group make a horrific mess, and then complain that their opposition can't reach a consensus on the best way to clear it up.

As for this.

They fail to take into account that Bush is more immersed in "Crawford" think than Washington group think.

I don't think there's much brush needing to be cleared in Iraq.


"A horrific mess"

At least the left has almost reached a consensus on that much anyway.


With all the certainty on the right about winning (or at least one must presume there is certainty given the viciousness with which they attack any contrary views), I've yet to hear one explain a coherent military plan for victory.

It sounds like the magical thinking my five year old practices: Democracy will rise! The army and police force will become awesome! The people will begin to worship American ideals! The terrorists will all be killed! The Shiites and Sunnis will cooperate! Iran will be neutralized and won't exert any influence over the new government!

Where is the pragmatic planning on the right? This IS the same right wing that planned and is responsible for our current state of affairs in Iraq...correct?

The level of hysterical hyperbole on the right is - if anything - more incoherent than that on the left. It's just that they have mastered the ability to appeal to atavistic impulses within their base. If they truly were concerned with victory in Iraq, and had the competence to achieve it, they would be explaining - calmly, intelligently, authoritatively - where the soldiers will come from, where the money will come from, and what those soldiers and that money specifically will be tasked with accomplishing. Key word being specific - not a bunch of hot air about terrorism and patriotism and partisanship. Lay out the plan like professionals, or quit yer bellyaching.



No, we are amazed that Nancy Pelosi's aide would admit the transparently disingenuous strategy of the Democrat caucus.

We (now referring to the USA) cannot lose militarily in Iraq. In one sense though, Dean is correct, the war in Iraq is not winnable by US military power alone. It must be won by the Iraqis both militarily and politically. Everyone, including Bush, knows this.

As usual he has been misunderestimated by his political opponents.


Katrina...sounds like your belly is aching more than mine.

Read the strategy doc at Whitehouse.gov and check back.


In one sense though, Dean is correct, the war in Iraq is not winnable by US military power alone.

See, noah, if you had a right wing noise machine that was interested in actual reporting, as per Sue, then that is teh conversation we'd be having.

That was in fact the gist of what Dean was indeed saying. It is a good sign that you can at least recognize it, even if our current state of partisan bestiality requires you to tear it to bits on cue from Hannity & Co.

But it rather ironic to see a group make a horrific mess, and then complain that their opposition can't reach a consensus on the best way to clear it up.

This certainly bears repeating. Very cogent. I'd love to hear the right wing discuss this little glitch in their thinking.....Anyone?

The Unbeliever

Katrina: no coherent plan for victory from the right? Have you listened to any speech Bush has given over the past 3 years?

Maybe Bush was speaking in secret code and I'm the only one who decoded it because I'm a political junkie, but I always thought the overall plan was pretty clear: Go in. Take Sadaam out. Establish a democracy. Defend it against terrorists until the Iraqis are able to do so. Leave.

We're done with parts 1 and 2. Right now we're in the final stages of "establish a democracy", although which stage of the "defend against terrorists" part we're in is admittedly unclear. What the right viciously attacks, and for good reason, is any calls for Bush to set a date for the "leave" segment before the others are complete, for the simple reason that doing so severely jeopardizes parts 3 and 4.

Now if you'd like to argue about the implementation of this plan, then go right ahead. But saying Bush, the right, etc don't have an actual plan is just plain fatuous.



You don't even know what's going on in Iraq.

there can never be a purely military victory.

Strawman alert!

Bush's plan requires BOTH a military and a political victory. That's why the two are on parallel tracks.

Our military is on the offensive in Iraq, rooting out insurgent and terrorist strongholds, while at the same time, Iraq's political process is moving forward in measured steps.

Part of the work we're doing is to bring sunni tribes into the political process. That's happening too.

When people were yelling that Iraq could not hold elections until the security situation improved, Bush said No. Elections will proceed.

That's proof there is a plan. And it is working. In about a week the Iraqi people will be voting in a government for four years. And many more sunni's will be voting than even in the last election.

Iraq's political process and our military progress go hand-in-hand. Refusing to see that the Iraqi people themselves are part of this battle is willful blindness.

Rick Ballard

Thread thievery.

Koslandian tactic 3.

Indifferently applied in the instance at hand but hey, anything to draw attention away from the gaggle of buffoons who constitute the Dem Incoherent Policy Group.

"Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)"

Dear Dr. Dean,

Sit down, shut up.

Yours Truly,

An elected Democratic Representative who wishes to remain in Congress.

I don't think Dean will take the hint. He still thinks that the left is a significant source of funding - and they are the only names on his Rolodex. Maybe he should see if Terry will takes his calls now.


We should keep attacking Dean. That way they'll keep rallying around him and lose. How neat is it that he's kissing up to Code Pink as they are harrassing the party's frontrunner.

Carry on.



Hate to give hurricane Katrina any ammunition but I think the last part of the Bush strategy is a bit disingenuous as well: if the first three parts go as Bush has outlined I doubt that we will then "leave". Despite administration denials re desiring long term basing rights, history and geopolitical realities indicate that it is unlikely that we will actually withdraw from Iraq for the forseeable future unless the Iraqi government insists which I doubt they will.

Katrina: Dean's remarks remain nutty.


We should keep attacking Dean. That way they'll keep rallying around him and lose.

Genius (You have a dark heart).

If Rove does get indicted, get your resume to the White House.

Rick Ballard


Of course we're leaving. The contracts for the road signs giving distances from Baghdad International Airport to the Al-Anbar Regional Desert Warfare Training Center and NAS Um Qasr were simple errors. So were the ten year base maintenance contracts for the Air Force bases in the western desert.


Thank you, TM. From you that really means something.

The Unbeliever

noah: fair enough, I was being a bit flippant with a one-word description. But considering my entire summary of the strategic plan only took 21 words, I wasn't exactly aiming for detail.

When I said "leave", I really meant "pull out the heavy fighters and reduce our troop levels by 70-80%". Like you said, the new Iraqi government will want us there to support its own army, and I'm sure we won't mind having several thousand troops armed and ready, in a volatile region, housed by a friendly government. I recognize that we'll probably need American-manned bases in Iraq for years to come, but I don't see that as a problem; heck, we've still got bases in Germany even though WWII ended 60 years ago, but I hardly think they're cause for great controversy!

Now as to whether long-term bases were an original goal of the invasion to start with, that's a tricky question. Certainly they're prime real estate for us to sit on if we anticipate any problems in the Middle East--right between Syria and Iran, with easy access to a number of other countries. If we were thinking of invading Iran, Iraq would be a great place to launch from. But the President can't go and openly list it as a rationale for war, for the obvious reasons that (1) every dictatoral country in the region would openly enter the war as a preemptive strike, and (2) we'd be tipping our hand to the prospective invadee years ahead of time.


Katrina!!!! I think we should draft you into the military....it will help you grow up!!!


Unbeliever: You are so right in every respect. But our almost President, John Kerry, went out of his way last Sunday to call on the Administration to reiterate that we have no desire for long term bases in Iraq! But I bet that even Feingold, were he to win the presidency would elect to stay in Iraq provided that US casualties were at a low level when he took office...its sort of a no-brainer.


Dean and Codepink aim their fire at Hillary, what goes around comes around. Who says there is no poetic justice.


Is any
person still listening to what Kerry has to say? That is akin to giving a hoot about what Gore says. We are no longer required to pay any attention to those two has beens. Also include Kennedy in that group.


More on Dean's remarks:

Dean implies that we should withdraw because we have not learned the lessons of Vietnam. For a clear look at the Vietnam war and what we should have learned, I refer to the piece by former SecDef Melvin Laird (in foreign policy review? sorry don't have the link).

Laird oversaw the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam in the early 1970's during the Nixon administration. He says that Nixon actually had no plan, secret or otherwise, to end the Vietnam war and was very reluctant to agree to troop withdrawals.

In Laird's view the key mistake in Vietnam was to make it "America's" war and to ignore democritization of S. Vietnam itself. This led to inexorable increases in American troop strength.

In Laird's view, "vietnamization" accompanied by US troop withdrawals could have saved the victory in Vietnam had not the Democrat controlled Congress pulled the plug on further aid in 1975. But they did and some 65,000 S. Vietnamese were executed following the N. Vietnamese victory not to mention the boat people and concentration camps. Some 70,000 US troops died in vain.

Whether Laird is correct or not re the ultimate outcome in Vietnam, it is clear that our military did learn something. We are attempting to establish a democracy and an Iraqi secutity force.

We must not let the Democrats do it again!


"... history and geopolitical realities indicate that it is unlikely that we will actually withdraw from Iraq for the forseeable future unless the Iraqi government insists which I doubt they will."

Just like in Germany.
Just like in Japan.
Just like in S Korea.
Just like in the Balkans.

These were successful endeavors precisely because the US "stayed the course" and adapted to the new realities on the ground.

Contrast these examples with those of the "cut and run" 60's/liberal generation:

Gulf War 1

If the Democrats get their wish, and the US withdraws forces from Iraq, we'll:

1) Never have the credibility to deter future enemies or to expect potential allies to trust us again.

2) Experience massive chaos in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region, paralleling or exceeding what we saw when we pulled out of Vietnam - reprisals against friendly Iraqis, refugees, loss of any pro-democratic movements, regional instability, etc.

3) Leave Iraq and the region open for takeover by Al Qaeda as a sanctuary, just like Afghanistan was under the Taliban, in which they can train countless future terrorists and from which they can launch future attacks against the US.

Of course, the Dems know all this. No one can be so mypoic or short-sighted that they don't recognize the dangers inherent in failing to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

The only possible explanation is that the Dems want the US to fail, but not just to "hurt Bush" and score electoral points. They want the US to fail because they WANT all these negative possibilities to come true.

Why? To destroy the US's position as the sole superpower and defender of democracy and freedom. They hope that in the power vacuum that follows, the world will look to a supra-national, global organization like the United Nations to provide security, government, redistribution of wealth, and protection of the environment.

We on the Right must do everything in our power to prevent this.

Cecil Turner

If we were thinking of invading Iran, Iraq would be a great place to launch from.

Yep. And unless CentCom planners are completely incompetent, there's an option to do just that. (In planners' parlance, that's called a "sequel"--a follow-on major operation--which contrasts with a lesser anticipated change in part of the basic plan, or "branch"). I seriously doubt if the decision has been made, but there's little doubt that one of the reasons for invading Iraq is that it enabled an invasion of Iran. And, as you say, that's not something you want the President to wax poetic about on national television.


An internal from the CBS poll worth noting:


Less than a year

One to two years

Two to five years

More than five years
28% "

The question asks 'will', not 'should'.

65% of the public is expecting us to remain for at least two years.

I really don't think Pelosi has half the dems ready to vote for the Murtha withdrawal. Maybe she could make a plea for another vote.


An important factor to point out is that the problem of creating an Iraqi army is not uniform up the chain of command. To create a good private takes 8 weeks of boot camp and a couple of months more of combat; to create a good general take 10-15 years of experience and training moving up the ranks. The first step is for the Iraqis to take over the vast majority of positions at the private and leutenant levels. That process is already well-advanced. When that happens, you will see a bottom-heavy army assisted by a top-heavy corps of American NCOs and higher officers. Which means that from a sheer numbers viewpoint, we are poised to withdraw tens of thousands of low-ranking American troops within a very short time frame -- the Iraqis have been seriously building the army for about 18 months now.

The effect that this will have from a readiness and morale point of view is even bigger, though. soldiers and marines who are making the military a career will serve tours of duty in Iraq as military advisors with Iraqi units, while guard and reserve troops will mostly stay home because they aren't needed -- or they will go to other places where they are needed. I suspect that it will be like Korea, where we have been deployed for 50 years but in partnership with the South Korean army, not as occupiers. It might even eventually become as safe as Germany was -- a place where American troops take their families on deployment for years at a time.

My point is that while we may easily still have bases in Iraq indefinitely like we have had bases in Germany, Britain, Korea, Japan for decades, having 160,000 troops deployed away from their families and civilian jobs for 12 months at a time is much more short term.

Except, of course, that every time that Dean, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. open their flaps and give the terrorists hope of victory it delays the day that each type of American soldier is no longer needed and can deploy home...

cathy :-)


I saw a snippet of an email today from a soldier in Iraq. He was watching MSNBC on the armed forces channel. He was shocked to find out they were losing. ::grin::

When in doubt, ask the grunts.

Or, tune in when one of the pundits from the left is on. The spittle is flying, because Bush's numbers are moving back up. When you stick your finger in your mouth and hold it up to the wind, you are bound to run aground. The democrats have stuck their finger in their mouth one time too many over Iraq. I saw a pundit last night that said it took a brave man to say the stuff Kerry and Murtha were saying when both knew it was unpopular to say it. I laughed. Where was this bravery when the poll numbers were strong for Bush and Iraq? At the tip of their fingers, planted firmly in their mouths, waiting for the right opportunity to withdraw said finger to figure out which way the wind was blowing. Someone forgot to remind them how fickle the wind is.



It isn't hard to figure out the strategy of the terrorists. In fact, they tell us, time and again. Create a divide here at home and victory is theirs.


"... one of the reasons for invading Iraq is that it enabled an invasion of Iran."

Indeed. It's no accident that we now have forces on BOTH sides of Iran. There's a larger strategy at play here.

As much of a danger as Saddam himself posed to the US and the Gulf region, I think after 9/11 the Bush administration correctly ascertained that IRAN was the larger threat, insofar as Islamist terrorists like Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda / Hezbollah / Hamas, et. and their state sponsors was concerned.

But I think the hope has always been - and still is - to AVOID a larger, messier war with Iran by changing the dynamics in the Arab and Muslim world by promoting freer, more open, and more democratic governments in the region.

Saddam was a threat in several ways, not just with regard to WMDs. As long as he was in power, he not only posed a risk of increasing his WMD stockpiles, restarting his WMD development programs, and obtaining Iraqi nukes one day, but he still posed a direct conventional threat to Iran, as well as to other countries in the Gulf.

And as long as that threat remained in the region and on Iran's western border, there was little hope of any pro-democracy movements succeeding in Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria, and the Iranian people would never feel secure enough to do what we hope they will do - stage their own pro-democracy Iranian revolution and THEMSELVES overthrow the mullahs who are clearly intent on developing their own nukes which they will use directly against Israel or against us via terrorist proxies.

The war in Iraq offered several major elements in this strategy:

1) Getting rid of Saddam and the threats he posed, conventional or WMD.

2) Coupled with the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the establishment of a more democratic government under Kharzai, a democratic regime in Iraq would allow the US and our coalition allies to support pro-democracy factions within Iran that would pressure the mullahs, and hopefully encourage the Iranian people THEMSELVES to overthrow the mullahs.

3) If all of that failed, to provide staging areas for military action against Iran. After 9/11, and considering the recent comments of Iran's hardline president, can anyone doubt what Iran will do with its nukes if it gets them?

The problem has always been TIME. We're in a race against the clock to prevent Iran's possesion of nukes.

Now, thanks to the opposition of our domestic Democrats, Iranian mullahs and their Syrian allies, as well as other despots in the region (including the UN) whose power and livelihoods are threatened by pro-democracy movements, have felt comfortable supporting the terrorists and other insurgents in Iraq.

What was already a very compressed time frame to prevent Iranian possession of nukes has become even shorter. Now, with even the IAEA's Elbaradei predicting that Iran is only months away from their goal, almost all hope of overthrowing the mullahs before they obtain nukes is gone.

One can only wonder how different things COULD have been had the Democrats supported the war effort, and helped Bush achieve this objective.

But the Dems have WANTED Bush and the US to fail in Iraq all along. Why?

See my post above.

richard mcenroe

Have the Democrats really thought this through? They're demanding the return of hundreds of thousands of American troops, talking to their friends and families... and getting ready to vote?


President Bush has a Plan For Victory. V-I-C-T-O-R-Y. Total victory. The Dumokrats have a plan for surrender. Wonder which one the voters will choose.


"Have the Democrats really thought this through? They're demanding the return of hundreds of thousands of American troops, talking to their friends and families... and getting ready to vote?"

That's a very good point. When our boys come home and tell their stories, the media will be forced to admit how well the war in Iraq is going. The truth is: it's gone better than anyone could have predicted. We're 2-3 years ahead of schedule on reconstruction and it's all been done with less cost and fewer casualties than any analyst predicted. Donald Rumsfeld deserves a lot of the credit. The man is a genius.

r flanagan

Either we'll still have a lot of troops in Iraq in November , and the democrats will pick up some seats , which I'd like , or Bush will bring most of them back before then , which I'd like even more because the bloodshed would stop. And if-as is likely - that means the republicans gain seats , so be it.

Bill in AZ

clarice, I'll second TM's motion... you have a great mind. Don't know how many times when I don't have enough time to read a whole thread (which are ALWAYS great on JOM), I ctrl-f "clarice"


Thank you very much,Bill.




The Democrats have stuck their fingers in their mouths and...


It's just yucky.

Hope they keep it up. :)


I'm just afraid they're beginning to catch on. Let's try to get someone they hate--say Rush--to demand they fire him.


fdcol63 - Excellent analysis.


Clarice - You have my vote as well!


Thanms, Jim.

r flanagan

I wonder if the democrats are more divided
about leaving Iraq than the republicans
are about giving up torture?

Cecil Turner

We're 2-3 years ahead of schedule on reconstruction and it's all been done with less cost and fewer casualties than any analyst predicted.

DougJ, I'd thought you were just, well, a bit over-the-top; but there's no way you can believe this. And I can't come up with any other conclusion but that you must be another of the pseudonymous troll infusion (apparently believing it's their Kos-given duty to disrupt discussion on "righty sites"). If not, I owe you a serious apology, but I can't see how that'd be the case.

I'm having a hard time understanding the motivation behind the infestation, but it's revealing that a certain brand of liberals appears incapable of honest discussion. I wonder why?


Please, don't let Howie resign, we need him!!!!!!


If we don't come out of the victory in Iraq with a permanent base, one from which we can plausibly militarily threaten Iran and Syria, then something's gone horribly wrong.


Katrina: here is how you sound:

blah blah blah Iraq
blah blah blah Right Wing
blah blah blah liars
blah blah blah losing war
blah blah blah atavistic (whatever)
blah blah blah



Sorry, Cecil, but an independent analyst predicted the war would cost $400 billion to $1 trillion, according to James Fallows' (otherwise virulently anti-Bush) Atlantic Monthly article. And you can't tell me that you didn't hear all the people talking about casualties well into the thousands? Maybe you're not as much of a a glutton for liberal MSM punishment as I can be.


"... the war would cost $400 billion to $1 trillion ..."

"... casualties well into the thousands..."

The harsh reality is that you also need to factor in the cost of FAILING to take action.


I totally agree with your Katrina analysis. Some people are so predictable. I always scream when I see her on MSNBC because I know exactly what she is going to say.


Thanks for saying a lot of how I read Iraq. 'WMD as the only reason' was never anything but a really good DNC/MSM spin.

Can the Pugs clone Dean? Most effective bunker buster known to man, with Surrender Kerry running second.

And do we never learn anything from war? I don't care if it's McCain "not enough troops" to Murtha "redeployment now", why are these armchair generals trying to enact another Vietnam? Get these politicians noses out of micro managing the war.


Excuse me. Didn't realize this was just another one of those useless echo chambers where opposing viewpoints are massacred with mockery. I'd heard differently about Tom Maguire's blog...wrongly, I now see.

Really don't think the blogosphere needs any more echo chambers, but enjoy talking to yourselves.


katrinaa davebo et all....just look at this horrific mess!!! What are you going to say after Dec 15 when probably 75% or more of Iraqi voters shame apathetic western voters and blue thumb their noses in your direction?

BAGHDAD, Dec. 7 -- Tucked into a bunker-like former headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, a type of war room unfamiliar in this country buzzed with life Wednesday. Halfway through a 14-hour shift, campaign workers from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab group that boycotted the country's previous elections in January, munched rice and kebabs, their faces lit by computer screens.

Across town, hundreds of black-clad followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr -- who decried balloting 10 months ago as something imposed under American occupation -- beat their backs with chains and stomped across a large poster of former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Sadr's political wing has joined forces with the alliance of Shiite religious parties that leads Iraq's current government and opposes Allawi's secular movement.

As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 -- this time for a new parliament -- candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

"It is like night and day from 10 months ago in terms of level of participation and political awareness," said a Canadian election specialist with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a group affiliated with the U.S. Democratic Party that is working to ease Iraq's transition to democracy.



Katrina: You didn't listen hard enough to hear the echoes of your voice. I heard a faint Etienne.

DJ, you are so good.


Sadr's a good example of the flaw in inherited privilege.

Cecil Turner

Sorry, Cecil, but an independent analyst predicted the war would cost $400 billion to $1 trillion . . .

Sorry, DougJ, but that doesn't come close to squaring this:

We're 2-3 years ahead of schedule on reconstruction and it's all been done with less cost and fewer casualties than any analyst predicted. [emphasis added]
A couple minutes with Google suggests it isn't a first. (And I'm just a bit miffed over having once assumed you were sincere.) Again, if wrong, I'd owe you a serious apology. But that's appearing even less likely.


If it's parody, CT, it is excellent. Enjoy.

Gary Maxwell


You are being too kind. Probably just in your nature. Me however ( evil grin)

Here is a post of young DougJ from yesterday:

DougJ Says:

You know it is sad but true: the right-wing nuts are much, much crazier than the left-wing ones. I snooped around the DU and Kos comments sections for a while and, yes, there’s definitely some fanaticism there. More than a little, in fact.

But the sheer idiocy and depravity of Free Republic and Little Green Footballs simply blew my mind. Even on Tom Maguire, there are people far, far crazier than those on DU or Kos.

The right wing in this country has gone completely off the deep end. That doesn’t mean that people like John are wrong to remain Republicans. Politics makes strange bedfellows of course, but it’s just bullshit when moderate Republicans say, essentially “yes, our president is a delusional Jesus freak with a Messiah complex, who is supported primarily by people who believe the sun rotates around the earth, but Cindy Sheehan is a little kooky and John Kerry drinks green tea, so I’m sticking with the party.” It’s time to wake up and smell the incense.

December 7th, 2005 at 4:56 pm

Now read that last paragraph and simply ask yourself what moderate you know that speaks like that? "Jesus freak with a messiah complex"?

Somebody spiked your punch Dougie. And I am sorry you think I should verbally pummel anyone who posts drivel like you have. But my silence does not mean I agree with anything posted. Only my words speak for me. Try reading some of the posts here, they are usually thoughtful left or right ( one poster in particular is an exception but that does not eliminate my point). But your drill has been to try to be outrageous and then claim if you weren't banned immediately that you were embraced.

CT great job. DougJ you are busted.


Cecil, find me an analyst who predicted a lower cost than what we've had so far and I will shut up. I mean actual cost, not cost minus oil revenues. All those low cost estimates you heard were assuming high oil revenues which are yet to materialize. Google it and you'll see that I'm right. If you can find someone who said it would be cheap but didn't mention oil revenues at all, I'll back what I said.

And as for casualties: yes there may been more casualties since major operations ended than were predicted, but there were many, many fewer during the initial invasion.

You're falling for left wing meme about predicted "cakewalks" and missing the big picture here.

Rick Ballard

It is rather interesting to see how Moby's perform after being harpooned. It's not something worth buying a ticket and popcorn to see - more like watching a bug struggling on a spiderweb.

You've gone one toke over the line too many times DJ - time to swim off.


Rick and Gary,
Ssy it ain't so about DougJ!
Iam so disappointed! I especially didn"t like the dissing of the TM blog. That was going a step too far. No Doug we are not right-wingnuts. We're just people with families who fear for the future of our children when we have partisan Bush-haters on the loose.


Do you suppose the lefts' swarm onto the other blogsites and make them piss in their pants laughing strategy has a goal of precluding their opponents from having an intelligent discussion ? Aren't there enough mindless commentators in the actual world?


A trillion bucks? Cheap at the price, DJ, cheap at the price.


Howard Dean wants a "DO - OVER" from "Today" show today

""We can and have to win the War on Terror."

"We can only win the war -- which we have to win -- if we change our strategy dramatically. ... if we want to win the war on terror we cannot pursue the failed strategy we've pursued..."


Dean Wants A Do-Over
Of course He does,otherwise he'll wake up tomorrow and find out he's been replaced.

Gary Maxwell

Here is another beaut of a comment from young DJ:

DougJ Says:

I just thought I’d share some of what passes for a discussion of morality on a well-respected conservative blog that shall remain nameles

Some wingnut wrote:

“1. The holocaust makes Abu Ghraib look benign.

2.And for that very reason I consider the Nazis just as bad as the islamo fascists”

No one even blinked at my reply

“I’m not sure I’d go that far, though obviously the Nazis were despicable.”

December 7th, 2005 at 3:19 pm

So you see we are all closet Nazi sympathizers here.

Gary Maxwell

Gary Maxwell

Off now?


heh...good work GM..gotta love google..once you hit post you are history


"So you see we are all closet Nazi sympathizers here."

Obviously not. But many of you are seriously deluded and your agreement with me on many issues goes to prove it.

Kim -- you have an excellent sense of humor about this. Kudos to you.


deluded is as delusional does


Does this mean Joe is not in the pay of those Krauts and Frogs? Drat.

Gary Maxwell

Well I guess we will put you down for "exposed but not embarrassed". Kinda a Paris Hilton reaction if you asked me.

Rick Ballard


I think that advancement in Koslandia is based upon convincing exhibitions of puerile mendacity. As Doug notes, he has been an efficient and quasi-believable liar here for a bit. There must be some sort of reward for debasing yourself (even in cowardly anonymity).

Tell us Doug - what does the liar of the month award look like - or did you just take a liar of the day or liar of the week prize?


Well as Clifton Webb once in the film Cheaper By The Dozen' a person with inner dignity is never embarrassed'. Though I must confess to feeling that your duplicity exposes a basic character flaw.Untrustworthiness.


I 'll have to bookmark this telling admission of his "But many of you are seriously deluded and your agreement with me on many issues goes to prove it. "

Gary Maxwell


Perhaps we have figured out his real identity. Is that you Dr. Dean?


It is interesting that when I do this with liberals, they say "how could I have fallen for this, shame on me" whereas you guys call me a liar, dishonest, etc.

You have very, very low standards for yourself.


Rick -- you don't really fall for it. You're a reasonable guy and I feel bad for messing with you. Many of the others here need to take a close look at their connection, or lack thereof, to reality.

Gary Maxwell


I guess a lot of us go by the common sense saying:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

You on the other hand ought to consider the negible standard you have set for yourself before presuming to lecture anyone.

I wont be responding to you further.


"I wont be responding to you further."

So you think. When I get back on with a different ID you'll be happily agreeing with my assertions that Duke Cunningham did nothing wrong, that Joe Wilson is a French spy who should be water boarded, and Bush will soon have an approval rating in the low 70s.

For all you know, I could be maryrose. She sounds an awful lot like me sometimes, doesn't she? And smithy -- could be me, too.


No ill will, people, though. But I'm a juvenile a** hole with too much free time and no employer's interested in my GED degree.

I'm out of here, at least in this incarnation.

Your cyberbuddy,



I'm out of here, at least in this incarnation.


Gary Maxwell

Cant resist.

No one ( but you ) said Duke Cunningham did nothing wrong. Most of us think he should have the key broken off in the lock of the cell. I have heard no one say Bush approval ratings will ever be the 70s. Hell he was reelected with a 52% rating. As far as Joe Wilson goes you are correct he is a saint. A saint I tell you. So willing to speak "Truth to Power". Wel nevewr mind the truth part but you get the picture. You should be proud of him. Run him for a public office with a D behind his name.

No you could not get anybody here to agree with you on anything, but you still condemned us for not comdemning you and behind our backs. Thats right we let you speak your piece without a lot of flak. Seems like that is quite consistent with the Constitution we believe in. Now that probably a novel concept ( freedom of speech) at the places you normally like to call home. Head on back there and tell them how we are all Nazis and worship the President as "Messiah" ( your words not one I have ever seen anyone here use).

Flake, liar and only moderately in touch with reality. Not that fine a combination.


Doug, BuhBye
No Iam not you and hopefully your exposure to us may have taught you something. As a teacher that is my wish for you,



At least we have standards. ::grin::

I must admit that it would be hard to be mad at you since I have done the same thing over at KOS...in reverse of course. ::grin::

Was your point only conservatives can be fooled by a phoney? Think again. ::grin:: Or better yet, think for once and the again will usually follow.

The comments to this entry are closed.