Joementum

Stray thoughts on Connecticut:

Lieberman loses, files the paperwork to run as an independent.  But what will his party do?  Here is the Times:

Mr. Lieberman’s determination to remain in the race may soon collide with the will of many Democratic leaders in Washington and Connecticut. The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is leading the effort to elect more Democrats in November, were expected to announce this morning that they were supporting Mr. Lamont and that the party should unite around the nominee, according to Democrats close to both men. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said a statement would be forthcoming, but declined further comment.

“Reid and Schumer will back Lamont, but the big question is if they will approach Joe about dropping out, because they don’t want to get his back up against the wall,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide who was involved in the Reid-Schumer discussions but was not authorized to discuss them publicly.

"[T]hey don’t want to get his back up against the wall" - when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose, and right now, all Lieberman has is a Senate seat, a shot at an independent run (with tacit Republican support), and an alternative life on the speaking/book tour circuit.  He has promised, like Jeffords, to vote as a Dem on Senate organizational issues such as majority leader and chairmanships, but maybe Joe is looking for love (and money, and senior committee assignments) on the other side of the aisle.

Meanwhile, Kos displays his skill as a political strategist with the suggestion that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid should be pushed to "strip Lieberman of all committee assignments."  Uh huh.  If that forced Joe to switch parties [presumably *after* the election], the guy who is "all about winning" would have managed to tilt the Connecticut Senate seat from Automatic Blue to highly competitive.

More from Kos in a "winners and losers" analysis:

LOSERS: Republicans... If they really thought Lieberman losing was such a bad thing for the Democratic Party they wouldn't have gone out of their way to prop him up. Instead, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the wingnutosphere, several Republican congresscritters, and the GOP's Big Money all rallied around their man. This is not a happy day for them.

Really?  Speaking only for myself, I am always deeply concerned when a businessmen worth a quarter-billion rises to power and prominence as a champion of the progressives.  But I may be a minority; "Machiavel" at Red State explained (and I agreed) a few days back that regardless of the Lamont-Lieberman outcome it was all good for BushCo:

Up until now, I was genuinely undecided on who I wanted to win the CT-SEN primary. A Lieberman loss would be great for us nationally, pushing the Democrats even further off a cliff. However, a Lieberman win would be a huge netroots defeat in a race they've thrown everything at. And that could quite possibly spark the mainstream meme that Kos is a has-been on the decline.

After weighing all these factors, I have tentatively come to the conclusion that Ned Lamont and the netroots need to be victorious next Tuesday.

I should add that Machiavel and I do not score any bonus points for creativity - Hotline's round-up features a number of happy righties.

On this point, Micky Kaus notes the "waddya gonna do" response from Markos, to wit, "The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities."

(Editorial aside to Mickey - the "suck oxygen" quote comes from the Kos post titled  "Lieberman to go indy"; his "Winners and Losers" post, which you describe as non-meglomaniacal, includes this gem as the second winner (after Lamont himself):

Winners: People-powered politics... Tonight we saw that people-power is not just a Montana phenomenon but a national one, and it can move mountains.

And Kos predicted it!  Any meglomania there?)

In addition to "Winners and Losers", let me suggest "Easy Marks" for this bit of gullibility:

Winners

Hillary, Bayh, and Edwards, who moved most aggressively to embrace Lamont after the winner was called.

What did Hillary do to win Kos' love?  Per this post, she sent Lamont's campaign $5,000, as if either his campaign or hers needed the money.  Well, if that is all it takes to buy off the dogs, it was money well spent, but I am going to wait to see whether Ms. Clinton puts her mouth where her money is.  (Aside - one never knows with these activist blogs.  Is Kos that credulous, or does he simply hope to promote the illusion that Hillary is on board and the "Sink Joe" ship is sailing?  Who can tell?)

Last thought, on the possible hacking of Lieberman's website - Brandon Loy had thoughts here and here, and I will extract this:

Anyway, here is Lamont’s official statement:

If Senator Lieberman’s website was indeed hacked, we had absolutely no part in it, denounce the action, and urge whoever is responsible cease and desist immediately. It is our sincerest wish that everyone planning to vote for Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman does so today.

Can’t argue with that. Now if only Kos had the same degree of integrity, and would apologize for his totally unsubstantiated and unjustifiable smear against the Lieberman campaign, claiming that their whole DoS story is a lie and that really they just didn’t pay their bills. For shame, Kos.

Lamont, who doesn't know anything about the blogs, at least had a reasonable idea - denounce the action, complete with an "IF" to encompass the possibility that the real cause may lie elsewhere.

By contrast, the netroots, born at the intersection of internet technology and activist politics, can't even imagine that this might be a tech-savvy dirty trick.

Folks like Kos and Armstong ought to denounce this behavior on a hypothetical basis, as their candidate did.  However, having lain down with dogs, Lamont is thoroughly flea-bitten - he won't be exerting any control or providing any leadership for his "supporters" on this point, and they are clearly unable or unwilling to do so themselves.

FWIW, the obvious predictions are (1) we will see a lot more of this come November, since hack attacks seem to carry zero consequences within the community that *might* be the source of the behavior.  The only consequence so far has been some unfavorable press; my impression is that the FBI has a hard time cracking these cases, so I am not expecting much from the investigation.

And (2) if the Kos site, or the site of some Dem candidate gets hacked this fall (which I herewith deplore in advance), Kos and Company will have forfeited any and all moral authority to complain.  Not that an absence of credibility has ever kept them quiet before.

MORE:  Justin Rood of TPM Muckrakers is actually covering this, but would he follow the trail to a bitter end?

Apparently, the web folks working for Lieberman were involved with Kerry's 2004 site, and the claim to be paying about $150/month for hosting, not the $15/mo being bandied about by the "say-anything" crowd.

Comments

[Other Tom]

Cleo got into the vodka real early again yesterday. Coherence is the first casualty of distilled spirits.

[Pete]

Terrye - Latest polls show that the majority of Americans do support what Rove has termed "cut and run".

Infact Lamont's position on Iraq is far more mainstream than that of Lieberman (or Bush or Cheney for that matter).

Iraq had nothing to do with the real terrorist threats that we face (e.g. these UK citizens of Pakistani origin).

Ultimately the Bush/Cheney/Rove rhetoric is going to catch up to them. Since they said that Iraq is the centerpiece on the WOT, let them run on their Iraq record.

[Other Tom]

Best assessment I've seen thus far: The pro-Bush candidate got 48% of the vote in a Blue-state Democratic primary.

[Other Tom]

"...let them run on their Iraq record."

Good idea. Let all of the following run on their Iraq record:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)

Each and every one of them voted for the October 11, 2002 resolution authorizing the war.

[Cecil Turner]

Ultimately the Bush/Cheney/Rove rhetoric is going to catch up to them.

You guys keep saying that, but so far . . .

Clearly, the operatic story of the boy-genius ala "Thick as a Brick" reigns supreme.

Hold the phone--Leo gets one right! I might support "Locomotive Breath" or "Living in the Past" as best Tull song (or even "Aqualung" as most quintessentially Tull) . . . but best album? "Thick as a Brick," hands down.

[Gary Maxwell]

OT

Shouldn't someone trek over to LJ site this AM and ask him again about the "declining terror threat" based upon events in London and Ohio this day? I nominate Sue, since she really has a wy with the Scary one.

[Lurker]

"Terrye - Latest polls show that the majority of Americans do support what Rove has termed "cut and run".

In fact Lamont's position on Iraq is far more mainstream than that of Lieberman (or Bush or Cheney for that matter)."

No so fast. Majority of the polls are so biased to fit the leftwingers. Better check Terrye's post at YARGB And (s)he's right and not alone.

"Iraq had nothing to do with the real terrorist threats that we face (e.g. these UK citizens of Pakistani origin)."

You're thinking of a totally different timeline...which is...today. You forgot three years ago.

While Saddam was running Iraq, Saddam and his country, Iraq, had PLENTY to do with the real terrorist threats that we face (e.g. these UK citizens of Pakistani origin).

Check Jveritas and Roy Robison's translated documents.

There's growing proof of Saddams' real threat to the entire world.

"Ultimately the Bush/Cheney/Rove rhetoric is going to catch up to them. Since they said that Iraq is the centerpiece on the WOT, let them run on their Iraq record."

Today, Iraq HAS nothing to do with the real terrorist threats that the world faces. It's the militias inside Iraq, sponsored by Iran and Syria as one of the terrorist organizations, that poses terrorist threats.

Why does it need to catch up to Bush / Cheney / Rove? Iraq WAS the centerpiece of GWOT before Saddam was toppled. AND it does run on their Iraq record.

As for your

[Semanticleo]

topsec;

"don't invoke them"

Where did I 'invoke' them? My reference was to Bush treachery which you sublimated to "your guys are creeps too" (paraphrase)

That's my point. Righty counters are always
about moral or character equivilism. But this conversation seems to be going nowhere.

[lurker]

Sorry, cleown (all lower cases intended).

Where is your proof of Bush's treachery regarding "No Child Left Behind"? From what I've read, this program had great intentions. The teachers did not like being upheld to such standards so that they can do a better job teaching our students.

Of course, why would this conversation not go anywhere with you or Pete or...?

[boris]

majority of Americans do support what Rove has termed "cut and run"

Ridiculous, votes in congress show the opposite. A factor left out is that "americans" who want to cut and run from from fighting in Iraq are going to have a bigger problem with angry fighters here if it starts to look like their stupidity and cowardice might lose another one.

The Nam thingy cuts both ways.

Ineffective back stabbers are one thing, but if it starts to affect our defense, expect consequences to be spelled out. As in we win this or else Islamic terrorists won't be your only problem. Make us your enemy at your own risk.

Somehow doubt those fretting about civil war in Iraq are interested in starting one here.

[Bob]

"But this conversation seems to be going nowhere."

Did you ever think it might be you... or as most moonbats, is the rest of the world always wrong.

Oh and pete with a little "p", we'll just have to wait and see, how wrong we really are, now won't we? I can't wait for the loony left to claim voter fraud when Joe gets in as an Independent. But here in CT., the Buckwheat McKinney thing won't play.

Joe by 10 points!

[Jane]

Best assessment I've seen thus far: The pro-Bush candidate got 48% of the vote in a Blue-state Democratic primary.

Tee Hee

[lurker]

I do remember the vietnam vets, Operation Desert Storm vets, etc., saying that had we won the Vietnam war or gone all the way during Operation Desert Storm, they would be at home with high morale and integrity. Instead, they have anger inside their systems.

We have to win this war against terrorism by facing up to it.

Yeah, boris, every time Repeat Pete, Spamming Sam, cleown, etc., come here, that's their intent...to encite a civil war here without facts and evidence.

[lurker]

So we should be worrying about the West? Any of you concerned about it? I'm willing to bet that Repeat Pete, Spamming Sam, and cleown are not.

[lurker]

This is typical of what's to come from the leftwing all day, same ole, same ole as 7/7 England bombings. Today's news remind anyone of Operation Bojinka of 1995?

DKOS

Those supporting the "cut and run" arguments should be double embarrassed by these comments.

[Semanticleo]

lurker;

Into your cups a little early today, aren't you?

[TT]

Ineffective back stabbers are one thing, but if it starts to affect our defense, expect consequences to be spelled out. As in we win this or else Islamic terrorists won't be your only problem. Make us your enemy at your own risk.

Somehow doubt those fretting about civil war in Iraq are interested in starting one here.

Civil War? Have you been watching that Red Dawn vid again?

You need to go back on the meds, Boris. I hear you can get Prozac in Mexico real cheap.

[Lurker]

Nope and never, cleown. Why? Because we have the facts and evidence. You don't.

The Lebanon army, a total of 60,000 troops, inequipped to handle southern Lebanon.

Equipped or not?

[Semanticleo]

"but if it starts to affect our defense,"

Has anything hurt our defense more than the
WH gang and their misadventures in the terrorist facade, Iraq?

[lurker]

"Has anything hurt our defense more than the
WH gang and their misadventures in the terrorist facade, Iraq?"

Nope. 1) Hezzies driving a vehicle into a marine camp in Beirut, killing 241 of our marines. 2) USS Cole. 3) Khobar Towers. 4) 9/11/01, planned in 1996. 5) Plus more.

These events occured or PLANNED before Bush took the office.

And, sorry, cleown, no misadventure in the terrorist facade. Why? Look at the post-WWII years.

[boris]

Red Dawn wasn't a civil war movie.

America actually had a civil war that wasn't a movie. Basically Republicans had to shoot a lot of Democrats back when Democrats were dumb enough to start a shooting war with Republicans.

They're still that dumb, but lack the guns nowadays so they tend to dismiss the reality of their prediciment using denial and fiction.

Red Dawn indeed.

[Semanticleo]

Nope. 1) Hezzies driving a vehicle into a marine camp in Beirut, killing 241 of our marines. 2) USS Cole. 3) Khobar Towers. 4) 9/11/01, planned in 1996. 5) Plus more.

Lurker;

You are good at promoting your fact-based ideology. Pray tell, what did Iraq have to do with the above references?

[lurker]

Ah...you didn't even bother to read Roy Robison and Jveritas's translated documents from Project Harmony. The facts are in there proving that Saddam was a dangerous threat to the world.

[sbw]

I heard a rumor that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were photoshopped into Lamont's victory celebration picture by Karl Rove...

[Semanticleo]

dangerous threat to the world.

unresponsive. what salient points drive you to connect Saddam with:

"1) Hezzies driving a vehicle into a marine camp in Beirut, killing 241 of our marines. 2) USS Cole. 3) Khobar Towers. 4) 9/11/01, planned in 1996. 5) Plus more."

[Pofarmer]

You want direct threats?

How about conspiring to assinate a former President and being involved in the 1993 WTC bombing? Sheltering Abu Abbas? Invading Kuwait? Genocide agaist the Kurds? There's plenty of evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved in 9/11, but of course, you won't buy any of that.

Just how much oil for food money was Saddam funneling to terrorists?

You think Saddam was some sort of stabilizing force for the world?

[boris]

Lost the point and tries to change the subject ...

connect Saddam with:

Hey clown face ...

Has anything hurt our defense more than the WH gang and their misadventures in the terrorist facade, Iraq?

Deposing Saddam has not hurt our defense.

Our defense was hurt by the adminstration that did nothing to prevent or avenge those attacks on America. If you want to discuss "our defense" then discuss "our defense" not some other straw dummy argument.

[Sue]

Pray tell, what did Iraq have to do with the above references?

Maybe nothing. Maybe something. But one thing is certain, he will never again be used by any administration as the boogey man. ::grin::

[Semanticleo]

"Has anything hurt our defense more than the
WH gang and their misadventures in the terrorist facade, Iraq?"

Nope. 1) Hezzies driving a vehicle into a marine camp in Beirut, killing 241 of our marines. 2) USS Cole. 3) Khobar Towers. 4) 9/11/01, planned in 1996. 5) Plus more.

These events occured or PLANNED before Bush took the office.

And, sorry, cleown, no misadventure in the terrorist facade. Why? Look at the post-WWII years.

Lurker; You made the bullets above, not me.
Prove your point

[Semanticleo]

"discuss "our defense" not some other straw dummy"

Were you talking about the chain-link around your house, or military defense?

What percent of containers are being isnpected? Is that defense? Do we have the
resources to do that? Is that part of the
budget?

What if Iran (as all air warfare has proven)
cannot be contained with anything but invasion? Could Iraq limit that scenario?

Wake up people. Iraq hurt our defense far more than it helped (toppling a dictator who can't hurt us now......please, he was never capable of hurting us in any substantial way)

Go fish for some more rotten mackeral

[boris]

Iraq hurt our defense far more

So you say. Back it up then.

[Cecil Turner]

What percent of containers are being isnpected? Is that defense?

Inspect containers after they're already here? Great idea. And we can back that up with a new missile defense program: we wait for missile impact, and then have the IAEA inspect the craters.

What if Iran (as all air warfare has proven) cannot be contained with anything but invasion? Could Iraq limit that scenario?

Bass ackwards. Is an Iran invasion feasible without Iraq (hint: no).

Wake up people. Iraq hurt our defense far more than it helped . . .

Brilliant strategic analysis . . . and nice illustration of why, when Dems talking national defense, they lose.

[Other Tom]

Among reasons to consider Saddam a threat pre-March, 2003:

--Attempt to assassinate a former US president;

--Providing safe haven for Abu Nidal and Zarqawi (with the latter operating a training facility in northern Iraq);

--Statement of one W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998, as follows:

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us";

--Statement of one w.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998 as follows:

" He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."

--Exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Mohamed el Baradei, December 1, 2002, as follows:

El Baradei:

"But we have also told the Iraqis, you know, if you really want to come clean, if you want us to be able to provide credible assurances to the Security Council, you need to cooperate with us actively by coming forward with evidence, documents and otherwise that would convince us that your program, past program have come to a complete halt and that we have seen all aspects of your past clandestine programs.:

Stephanopoulos:

"But the Iraqis haven't done that yet, have they?"

El Baradei:

"No, they haven't."

[Pofarmer]

"What percent of containers are being isnpected?"

They all are. Before they reach our ports, too.

[Other Tom]

Further reasons:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[lurker]

Thanks for proving my points.

[noah]

According to loony left logic Rove/Bushco/Blair would have dragged their feet and let the terror plot go forward downing 9 transatlantic flights probably killing >3000 people. But alas the plot was too widely known to be kept secret!!

On the other hand, Bushco may very well have planted explosives in the WTC towers and faked the Pentagon attack with a missile because Ted Olson and his wife would have readily agreed to her staying out of sight for the rest of her life!! What else would a patriot do?

[Specter]

Wowser....Tic gets slammed again. And Pete - wanna show us all those polls you keep bringing up - maybe you could compare them with the results from votes in both House and Senate dealing with pulling the troops out. LOL

OT - don't believe the Microsoft Website stuff on recovering from a failure in WindowsXP. Crap - I've been busy rebuilding my 'puter for two days....

Wonder what Neddy thinks about new arrests in the terror front?

BTW - for sam et. al. Did you see the news yesterday about the Iraqi army taking over yet another section of the country? We are half-way to the goal of having them provide most of the security for their own country. And sam - I love the way you pick and choose - but mostly I skip over your posts. Would you like me to start posting how many people were shot in Hartford last night? I could just about post article for article.....The fact is that - yes - people are still dying in Iraq. The terrorists are killing Iraqi civilians. Man - that is really kewl stuff you stand up for.

[lurker]

Heh, all of the 9/11 conspiracies ARE disproved by people I know that actually saw the plane hitting the Pentagon or worked at the Pentagon.

[lurker]

I was also told by a local that all of our sea ports are being very, very closely monitored.

[Barney Frank]

"A policy that calls for a response that is far more costly than the threat is a losing policy."

The threat is the incineration of Israel and an American city or two and the eventual evisceration of our civilization.

Is it that the left is only interested in political power and therfore pretends the threat isn't serious or is it that the left is looking for allies in the evisceration of our civilization and therefore pretends the threat isn't serious?

[noah]

The left always discounts human nature when constructing its worldview. Of course utility and risk calculations indicate that we should just ignore the perils of terrorism...but in the real world, we real flesh and blood humans cannot. Our innate desire for justice demands that perpetrators of terrorism be caught if possible. Only sociopaths like Bill Clinton can cynically ignore the evidence that implicated Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing for example.

[Semanticleo]

Everyone;

Got a baler for all that straw?

Evidence my arse. The only cogent thought
was by Cecil: "Is an Iran invasion feasible without Iraq (hint: no)."

The first honest answer abut WHY we went to Iraq. Think the American Public would have bought into the invasion if THAT were given as the prime mover? A permanent base of operations was the goal all along, wasn't it.?

[larwyn]

My hat is off to those with the patience to continue the dialog with those that refuse facts.

Must be that I spent too much of my life sure that if I just got thru a person would change. Would see the light.

God bless you guys and gals, you are either Saints or masochists!

Today of all days, I have absolutely no patience for their nonsense.

Give them the facts of cuts to Intel and Defense when the Fornicating Rapist was in the Oval Office.

That'll will melt in the cyber ether somewhere between your effort and their brains.

Geeez!

[noah]

Yep, Cleo...how clever of you to figure out that the admin is possibly (I would say certainly) being disingenuous when it says or implies that it has no interest in permanent bases in Iraq. It would be a strategic blunder to leave Iraq unless asked to do so by the government of Iraq. I daresay that even Hillary Clinton, if elected, would keep troops especially air force assets in Iraq indefinitely.

Obviously your strong suit is not geopolitics.

[boris]

abut WHY we went to Iraq

The invasion of Iraq was "abut" the war on terror. Iran is a part of that war in very much the same way Saddam was. Were Iran and Syria to suffer the same fate as Afghanistan and Iraq, intermational terror would be in deep dark trouble.

Can't wait.

Your side wants to wait until they actually detonate a nuke on a US city to get serious.

[Semanticleo]

"Obviously your strong suit is not geopolitics."

And yours is, obviously NOT participatory democracy.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

[Semanticleo]

"intermational"

so glad you are error-free. typical right-wing aggrandizement.

[Pete]

If you think that the polls on Iraq are biased, then by all means continue to live in your fantasy world.

That the people are dissatisfied with the Democrats on Iraq is one of the reasons that Lieberman lost. It is also why Hillary will not win the 2008 nomination.

And while there are risks for Democrats, the risks for far greater for Republicans. The Iraq war after all is something that Bush vigorously pursued, something for which he got all that he wanted (money and soldiers), and something that he was fully in charge of.

But rather than running on their record of the Iraq war, Bush and the Republicans are running away from it. With a majority of the people concluding that the Iraq war was not worth it (despite the constant attempts by Bush to put lipstick on a pig), it should be no surprise why they are running away from their record on the Iraq war.

[boris]

so glad you are error-free. typical right-wing aggrandizement

Too bad you couldn't use it in a sentence instead of so sad lame sarcasm.

[noah]

Cleo, how does recognizing the obvious utility of having a military base in the heart of the middle east violate participatory democracy? Surely you don't think any it is America's interest to reveal to the world every aspect of our strategic intentions even if they are obvious.

Bush was re-elected...you really need to get a life.

[boris]

running away from it

Give it up. Iraq is already lost for your side. Declare "failure" and move on.

Nobody's running away, it's a done deal. Over. Finito. Mop up phase.

Building a workable democracy is the only question still open. Go ahead and advocate failure.

Stuff is heating up everywhere else now. Iraq isn't. It won't take long for people to figure out that while your side was wailing and lamenting "we're looooooooooooooozing l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o zing", Rummy quietly took care of business.

[Semanticleo]

apt though, ain't it boreus?

[Semanticleo]

Cleo, how does recognizing the obvious utility of having a military base in the heart of the middle east violate participatory democracy?

Are you really so clueless, or is it a dodge to make yourself look innocent and naive?

[boris]

apt? harldy

clowns should avoid sarcasm ... it doesn't work

[boris]

Are you really so clueless

Self parody alert!

The Iraq invasion was voted on.

It passed.

[Semanticleo]

boreus;

sarcasm is intended for those who need less than a brick-bat to keep their attention span on the level of a three-year old.

That was not sarcasm, that was a clear
example of the 'my shit don't stink' right wing Plausible Denialists of which you are
a 'Gold Turd' member

[boris]

clue for clueless clown ...

so glad you are error-free

... Is known as sarcasm, sad and lame but that's what it's called.

[Semanticleo]

Well I guess I overestimated your attention span. A three-year old is about right.

And I notice you don't deny your right-wing aggrandizement.

[TexasToast]

Nobody's running away, it's a done deal. Over. Finito. Mop up phase.

Mop up phase? You mena we have been "mopping up" since the first week? Didn't you guys say this three years ago? Or was is Mission Accomplished? Yeah! That was it!

I thought $50 wrenches and $100 tiolet seats wer bad - but $300 billion mops?

[boris]

And I notice you don't deny

I don't deny calling you a clown if that's what you mean. Clueless clown to be exact.

[Specter]

TT,

Obviously you know nothing about FAR and DAR - otherwise you would know why the government spent money like that.

Everyone - as to Dems waiting to have a nuke or a bio/chem attack here before acting - I can see it now. "What do we do?" "I know - let's use a few hundred million in Tomahawks to take out an aspirin factory!"

[Specter]

Heh - and by TIC's logic - if she didn't deny it, she must be one, right?

[boris]

right

[Specter]

Does that mean a corrollary to Tic's Law is that if someone denies an accusation, then they are innocent of what they have been accused of? TIC's Law of Inverse Logic.

[boris]

Or was is Mission Accomplished?

Is was is what is was?

I beg your pardon, nobody promised you a Rose garden.

[noah]

Cleo, but it is you who are innocent and naive to think that a presidential election should be a referendum on the strategic foreign policy intentions of the candidates. Remember Kerry's secret plan for the war in Iraq? It was plausible for him to keep it secret altho nobody on this side thought he really had one. Ditto Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

You are just not quite ready for prime time, baby.

[windansea]

hmm...Senators Pryor, Salazar, and Inouye say they will support Joementum's Indy run

[Patton]

""Naoh says: The HzB started with diversionary rocket attack followed by a cross border raid killing 8 and capturing 2.

Your theory is a conspiracy theory.""

Wow. Is that how this conflict started...you're so smart, so its not all about the last 60 years.

I wasn't speaking of the catalyst event, I was speaking about the plan for what to do once you had the catalyst.

I must have missed Israel's all out invasion every time they have been rocketed or had someone kidnapped. You would think that would have been in the papers.

[Patton]

Did anyone know there are still Nazis in Germany.....we are still in the mop up phase there as well.

[lurker]

"Think the American Public would have bought into the invasion if THAT were given as the prime mover? A permanent base of operations was the goal all along, wasn't it.?"

Nope.

[lurker]

"

dangerous threat to the world.

unresponsive. what salient points drive you to connect Saddam with:

"1) Hezzies driving a vehicle into a marine camp in Beirut, killing 241 of our marines. 2) USS Cole. 3) Khobar Towers. 4) 9/11/01, planned in 1996. 5) Plus more."

You failed to read the translated documents that proved Saddam trained and funded the terrorists and had every intent to threaten the Westernized world. The facts are in those documents. If you refuse to read them, then there's no point in providing facts to you.

[PoFarmer]

Please folks, especially cleo, though it won't matter.

Go to American citizen Soldier and read "repatriate games"

The guy is a Sargeant with a Stryker Brigade.

To the lefties, I'm sorry, but it's down to Baghdad. We win or lose there. Fallujah, Tal Afar, etc, are all history, and are all Iraqi controlled. You've got one last shot at defeat. Why are there casualties? Because we're moving against the enemy. The enemy doesn't need to win, they just need to prove we can't. Will be interesting to see if they can get that done.

http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/2006/07/repatriate-games.html

[Pofarmer]

"If you refuse to read them, then there's no point in providing facts to you"

ding, ding, ding,

Facts seem mostly irrelevant to the left. It's all about feelings----or something.

[Semanticleo]

Facts seem mostly irrelevant to the left.

I've seen no facts, just bluster.

[Specter]

TIC - these folks have posted more facts today than you have in the last year. Sorry you can't seem to accept that.

[Other Tom]

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Thus far, we're the only fascist state in history with an illegal immigration problem.

[Semanticleo]

Name one. (Flyspec is an idiot doesn't count)

[lurker]

"Facts seem mostly irrelevant to the left.

I've seen no facts, just bluster."

Of course, facts ARE irrelevant to the left, including cleown! That's because cleown does not read. And even if (s)he reads, (s)he refuses to absorb the facts.

So, not worth repeating the same old facts to cleown over and over. (S)he will simply treat the facts as bluster.

[lurker]

"Name one. (Flyspec is an idiot doesn't count)"

Don't need to anymore. You just ignore the facts and treat all facts as bluster.

[Semanticleo]

"Thus far, we're the only fascist state in history with an illegal immigration problem"

and what would you do about that problem of
'immigration'. Revealing isn't it?

[Semanticleo]

"Don't need to anymore"

sweet surrender

[lurker]

No surrender. You just bluster off all facts made available to you.

[lurker]

BTW, cleown, you asked for facts and we answered your questions and daire by presenting and making the facts available to you. Our job is done. So no surrender.

[Specter]

Just go back and read this thread Tic. You asked for linkages between Hussein and terror and got about 30 of them - all facts. You ignored them - now what does that say about who is ignorant?

[Gary Maxwell]

Senators Pryor and Salazar are the first Senators to endorse the Independent candidate from Connecticut. It probably another rovian plot, right repete et al? LOLSHMEW

[noah]

Patton, now you talk about 60 years? You are the one that said the current war is a conspiracy between Israel and the US without an iota of evidence to support it. Thats a conspiracy theory.

Sometimes you make sense. Not this time. This is real...not Plamegate bullshit. People are dying.

[noah]

Nit the clit and she will have a fit

No solution except absolution

Yes we forgive the clit for all of her sins against reason

And ask that Tom (since we did our best) to ban her for a season

[JM Hanes]

Other Tom:

"Thus far, we're the only fascist state in history with an illegal immigration problem."

ROTFL!

[maryrose]

pete:
Because I basically like you more than cleo I'm going to give you the heads up : You are wrong about your belief that the majority of the country is soft on terrorism. They are not. After today's British airline threats to our security in taking flights you have to see the war on terror for what it really is. A threat to our safety,security and our peaceful free way of life. We must be proactive not reactive. The dems just don't get this and therefore I can't vote for them to represent me and my family in Congress. I have 2 children, and 16 nieces and nephews; I want their future world to be safe and happy.

[Other Tom]

"And what would you do about that problem of
'immigration'. Revealing isn't it?"

What is revealing of what? I offer the fact that people are coming in droves to this country, even at great risk, as evidence that perhaps the designation of the US as a "fascist" country is a tad premature. And in response, you ask what I would do, and without knowing my answer you say it is revealing? Have you been in the sauce tonight, Cleo old girl?

[SunnyDay]

Well heck, this was a fast read. Just scrolled on by most of it. Same stuff over and over and over and over and over....

[PeterUK]

"What percent of containers are being isnpected?"

Quite simply Leotard,if the containers get to port it is too late to inspect them,that is why they are being inspected at the port of origin.Even then the job is vastly complicated because cargo vessels often pick up more cargo on route.
Since containers can originate from anywhere before they reach container depots,the port of origin is the only place where inspection can take place,out of the question on the high seas,too late once they get into port in the West

[Patton]

Naoh says: ""You are the one that said the current war is a conspiracy between Israel and the US ..""

No I didn't, you characterized my remarks that way. Since a 'conspiracy' would require an illegal act and I don't see anything being done as illegal, then it can't be a conspiracy.

Its not a 'conspiracy' when two Nations decide on a course of action and I never labelled it as such...that was YOUR word for my saying the US and Israel were coordinating.

[gay male spankings]

Doesn`t matter what you say, but how...!! But you said it well http://spankingforest.spazioblog.it/