Powered by TypePad

« The Blackout Continues | Main | Why Can't We All Just Get Along? »

August 18, 2006



We proles never wanted it in the first place.There is nothing however,nothing that irks us more than trying to blow us from shit to Kingdom Come,we tend to get eally miffed.
I wonder is the 12 Imam has management agency,there's the TV interviews,the lecture tours,the book,the movie,could make Joe Wilson look like chickenfeed.



First off - Welcome back Jeff. Even though most of us do not agree with you - at least you aren't Tic or sam or some of the others that have been "visiting."

That said - talking timetables is simply Demoncratic talking points. We will leave when we have achieved our "goals" for the country. And yes - those goals have changed over time - just as any strategy does. But now the goal is to leave a stable government in place - a government that can protect itself from the likes of Iran.

Leaving before achieving our goal is an open invitation for jihadists to take over - as HEzbollah has done in Lebanon. No rational soul believes that the Lebanese government actually controls things within their own borders.

Now - as to facts. We have reached 50% of our goal in fielding the Iraqi Army. 50% done. That group has taken over security in large segments of the country. That freed up our troops to move into the biggest remaining hotspot - Baghdad. Without reaching some of our goals that would not be possible.

I laugh at those who think you can put a timetable to changing cultures that have been in place for generations. At the very least - the current generation of Muslims and probably their kids will have to be monitored and sheperded until they die off. When Iran is using Khomeni's words against "the Great Satan" in 11th grade textbooks, you know this is not something that is going to end in a few weeks or even a few months.


Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

Perhaps Ahmadainejihad is setting himself up to be the 12 Imam.

Other Tom

One thing you'll notice about Jeff is that he is extremely long on whining and defeatism, and extremely short on sensible and constructive suggestions. He now offers this:

"Then, among other things, we actually have armed forces that are a more effective threat with regard to other regimes (cf. Abizaid and Pace's testimony beginning of August).

"Beyond that, I would devote a lot of resources and attention to actually getting bin Laden and Zawahiri, not letting them get away this time through utter bad judgment."

Gosh--you mean you'd really like to have armed forces that are "more effective?" What a marvelous idea! Why didn't we think of that? Resources and attention to getting bin Laden? I guess that means invading Pakistan, right? Attack Pakistan, by all means, but certainly not Iran...

We're "less safe" now? Perhaps we are less safe than we were five years ago, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether we are more or less safe than we would have been were the Saddam Hussein regime still in power. No one can ever know, but those whose instincts are for surrender and despair can always wring their hands and fret, supposing that everything might have been fine had we simply followed the example of Jimmy Carter.

Concerning Iran, it seems very clear that for a long time now that country has been funding and supporting organizations and individuals for the purpose of carrying out murderous assaults against Americans throughout the world. That, historically, is a garden variety casus belli. What would be appropriate in these circumstances is, first, a declaration of war agains Iran, followed by punitive strikes against every Iranian military installation wherever found, Iranian infrastructure, particularly including its sparse oil refining capacity, with such strikes to continue until the current Iranian government sues for peace or is supplanted by a government that does so. This would make sense, of course, and may be urgently required, but it is not remotely possible. The American people are not anywhere near ready for such a course--the price of oil might spike!--and so, like Jeff, they will whine and point their guns inside the tent, as has become their nature. In the end, the West will lose. This is a nation that, in 2006, is utterly exhausted by the loss of fewer men than were lost in the seizure of Guadalcanal in 1942-43. I don't like our chances at all.

And the Jeffs and the Jimmy Carters have nothing whatsoever to offer but their complaints. And, of course, their novel recommendations that our armed forces be "more effective." Tell us about your own service, Jeff...


Other Tom.
You are talking to a generation that is still infected will the "Better Red than Dead" philosophy which so sapped the will of the sixties generation,life will go on,that they are willing to throw centuries of history and struggle away does not impinge on their minds whatsoever.
To them a Grand Ayatollah is preferable to Bush.


Why have a more effective military if you aren't willing to use it?


We stay in Iraq until the mission is completed. Meanwhile we get ready to either bomb or invade Iran and take away their nuclear facilities. They are too crazy to have this kind of desructive power at their fingertips. Infiltrate the enemy president's inner circle and take him out.
Bring him back dead or alive.


Wanna be larger? Without surgery? Satisfy the ladies NOW!!!!!


Too large? Need surgery? Cut the ladies some slack NOW!!!!!


And, of course, their novel recommendations that our armed forces be "more effective."

You misunderstand what I was saying. The point is that the state the Iraq war has left our military in means that we have a less credible military threat backing up whatever we say to other countries.

Oh, and on Iran, I am all for regime change, I'm just not convinced it can be done effectively, at acceptable cost, by the U.S. government, especially including with military action (or even 75 million dollars from the State Department). In this regard, I agree with Akbar Ganji. I am all for American citizens - especially those deeply opposed to the Bush administration, who I think have particular credibility on the issue and are less likely to cause the Iranians they support all kinds of strategic problems - providing the various kinds of support, indirect and direct, to the democratic and liberal opponents of the regime, and opposing regimes (yes, even if it includes the French!) who deal with the Iranian regime, giving it financial support and psychological succor, as Ganji put it in his recent NYT op-ed.

As for Social Security, I've always taken the actual conservative position to be that Social Security was unjust and therefore should be eliminated, and that those who didn't get that and thought conservatives just wanted to save it were the objects of the vanguard of their Leninist strategy.

So two questions for you all: 1. Do you think Social Security is an injustice, or is the problem with Social Security solely that it is on shaky fiscal grounds? 2. If you were convinced that Social Security were in perfect fiscal shape for the imaginable future, would you drop the support for reform?


You misunderstand what I was saying.

By any rational measure the current military is more effective than any in history. The choice is not between some conjured ideal military, it's between what leaders like Carter and Clinton did to the military and how they abused it vs what we now have. There is no comparison. If one claimed it could be better that might be a valid point, but coming from those claiming the current administration is incompetent or malevolent it is preposterous.


By any rational measure the current military is more effective than any in history.

Agreed, but again, the point is that the Iraq war makes the threat to use that military considerably less convincing to those we threaten. In fact, I suspect one of the obstacles any decision to attack Iran will face will come from the military itself. I know that that in itself is not so unusual, but I suspect the intensity of the opposition would be quite unusual.


Make an analogy between sniper accuracy and military effectiveness. The current sharpshooter with the rifle is hitting his targets. The critics CLAIM what they want is a different set of objectives targeted, but everybody knows they can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nobody trusts your side with the rifle Jeff. If you really want serious consideration given to your objectives you're going to have to lose the attitude and start making sense. Don't see it happening.


any decision to attack Iran

We didn't want to bomb Iraq into submission. Saddam would have been hard to take out that way and there was no infrastructure he needed to rely on to stay in power. No, we wanted Iraq and Afghanistan as friendly territory.

Iran is different.


Is this Jeff guy retarded?


Gen McInerney whom I trust says we can take out most of Iran's nuclear facilities quickly by aerial bombing. And we don't have to nation build. If after that, the Iranis can't get rid of the Mullahs, who cares?


What makes the threat less convincing is our enemy's knowledge of the mindset of the left. Constantly second guessing, pulling back, accusing our own of crimes, giving away our secrets. Denigrating our military.

They play you for G-d's sake!! They repeat your talking points. They mimic your disrespect for the President and the flag. They count on you and your PC approach to war.

The left has a track record that won't go away with the right words in a PR piece.

The democrats have a track record well known to the military - budget cuts, old equipment (Viet Nam era helicopters?), less bennies. Y'all can talk all you want to, but words are just words.

Some of us are military and from military families. We are not fooled.


On many subjects Jeff has remarkable command of relevant information. Tends to infer malice rather liberally though.

will come from the military itself

I served, elisted at 17 during Nam. My brother saw combat there, my father saw combat in WWII as did all my uncles. My son served during Gulf War 1.

Do not make "the military" choose between defense and democracy. There is a simple obvious solution conceived by Robert A. Heinlein. Only vet's votes count.

Cecil Turner

. . . the point is that the Iraq war makes the threat to use that military considerably less convincing to those we threaten.

I thought the lefty point on the Iraq War was that we deposed someone who had gotten rid of his WMDs and had no real ties to terrorism. Aside from being wrong, it's hard to see how an unjustified use of the military would make a future threat less credible.

Besides, what you proffer as "strategy" is actually commentary on operations. A strategy would be bigger picture: something like "depose terror sponsors" (sensible) or "eliminate all al Qaeda operatives" (not so). So far, the Dem strategy appears to be to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Not surprisingly, it's failed to gain traction.



I always ask this when I hear your argument. What proof - other than LSM - do you have that our military is any weaker or less able to respond than before? Yes - we have a lot of troops on the ground. But it is not all of our military, is it? How many carrier groups are dedicated to the ME? How many air force wings? What are they? How many National Guard units have not been called up? What percentage of active forces are actually engaged? You see - you and your friends keep saying we are "overstretched" and "worn out" - but I have never seen any proof of that. None.

Other Tom

I am not talking about a "threat" to use military force, and thus am not concerned with whether or not the Iranian regime would consider it credible or not. I am suggesting that such force be used, and used robustly, pursuant to a declaration of war. The contnued deployment of the present force structure in Iraq would pose no serious impediment to devastating action against Iran, action more than sufficient to bring a quick end to the current regime. Nor am I concerned with what use we might or might not make of the French, who are even less reliable today than they have been throughout history--and that is a statement of majestic dimension indeed.

But as I say, I hold out not a scintilla of hope that such a course will be pursued, either by this administration or any other. That is because the nation as a whole lacks the resolve, and the confidence in its own civilization, ever to undertake such a course. At present much of the legislature--and the populace--is consumed with an overweening concern that our armed forces comply scrupulously with rules crafted long ago for the governance of wars between civilized nations--rules which are held in utter contempt by our mortal adversaries. And the same legislature and populace are aghast at the mere possibility that somehow, somewhere, an intelligence-gathering tool of demonstrated effectiveness might transgress upon some fabled notion of privacy, not one whit of which they will relinquish in the name of survival.

It will be a long and difficult struggle, one in which the US at present has no serious allies outside the English-speaking world, and one which the US and those "allies" will ultimately lose. The West has lost its soul and its will. I give you Ned Lamont, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson and the rest. I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.

Rick Ballard


Is it possible that you err in the same manner as Jeff? He is relying upon liars - the press - in order to reach his conclusions and you may also be doing so.

The founding of this nation was accomplished by roughly 35% of the population. They were the only ones that counted then and they are the only ones that count now. The rest are dross who haven't a clue as to what is required to see a project through under adverse circumstance.

I'm quite cheerful at the moment - Iran seems intent upon committing a grievous error and, should they do so, we will have a plethora of gun camera video to remark upon. There is a fair chance that we will have the video even if their error is relatively minor.

I believe that the air campaign in Iran will be completed more quickly than was the campaign in Serbia and with fewer civilian casualties, although that fact is of minimal importance.


Assad has pissed off the rest of the Arab states; he hid in his palace then called the others half-men--Cool..

Annan is accusing the Israelis of breaking the cease fire (ignoring that everyone else including the UN failed to meet its part of the bargain). I think now Israel will continue to interdict resupplying of Hezbollah and attacking their infrastructure and officers (with aid from the intel they picked up) and the world is in no position to do anything.

Condi has gotten the French treatment (as did Colin before her). Let them eat sand.


Well said SunnyDay! And it all began with Joseph C. Wilson IV and the New York Times! July 6, 2003 is the day they labeled Bush a liar. And the MSM played along like the puppets they are. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm>What I Didn’t Find In Africa

”Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Note the dates!

{July 8}, Robert Scheer http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15270>LA Times-A Diplomat’s Undiplomatic Truth: They Lied
{July 8}, CNN http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/07/bush.visit/>Bush Trip Evokes Mixed Response
{July 9}, Paul Begala http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/09/cf.00.html>CNN-Mr. Bush's Administration Knew Was False When Mr. Bush Made That Claim In His State Of The Union Address.
{July 10}, Tim Noah http://slate.msn.com/id/2085434/> Slate-Whopper Of The Week: Donald Rumsfeld
{July 10}, CNN http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/sprj.irq.main/>Pentagon: 1,000 Troops Wonded In Iraq War
{July 11}, Daryn Kagan http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/asb.00.html>CNN-Dean: It’s Beginning To Sound A Little Like Watergate
{July 11}, Anderson Cooper http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/se.12.html>CNN- The Flap Over The President's False Claim
{July 11}, Paul Begala http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/cf.00.html”>CNN-The Bush Administration Did Not Tell The Truth
{July 12}, Thomas M. DeFrank/Richard Sisk http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/100146p-90550c.html>Daily News-President Bush’s False Claim Before The Iraq War
{July 13}, Steve Inskeep http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=July/13/2003>NPR-Faulty Intelligence On Iraq
{July 14}, Liz Marlantes http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0714/p01s04-uspo.html>CSM-Dean Petitions For Investigation
{July 14}, Paul Begala http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/14/cf.00.html”>CNN-Should Heads Roll
{July 15}, Tim Noah http://slate.msn.com/id/2085689/”>Slate-Based Almost Entirely On Documents That The CIA And The White House Knew To Be False
{July 15}, Nicholas Kristof http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F10F93C580C768DDDAE0894DB404482>NYT-Niger Uranium Hoax In The State Of The Union Address
{July 17}, Harold Meyerson http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3469-2003Jul16&notFound=true>WP-The Presidents Baseless Assertion In His State Of The Union Address That Iraq Had Sought To Aquire Yellowcake Uranium From Niger
{July 17}, Linda Feldman http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0717/p01s01-uspo.html?mostViewed>CSM-When Presidential Words Don’t Line Up
{July 18}, Paul Begala http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/18/cf.00.html>CNN-Why Did The Bushies Oppose An Investigation
{July 21}, William Raspberry http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A20783-2003Jul20&notFound=true>WP-The Falsehood About The Uranium Purchases
{July 23}, Laura J. Winter/Richard Sisk http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/103161p-93314c.html>Daily News-A False Claim About Saddam Shopping For Uranium

And who could forget these?

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030918-103512-1651r.htm>Kennedy Labels Iraq War A Fraud
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2092515&>Whopper: Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0209-01.htm>Gore Says Bush Betrayed The U.S. By Using 9/11 As A Reason For War In Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/gore.iraq/>Gore Calls For Resignations In Bush Administration
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92547,00.html>Kerry Attacks Bush While Defending Iraq Resolution Vote
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/gephardt/index.html>Gephardt Rips Bush ‘Machismo’ On Iraq

Not a word however about what former Prime Minister Mayaki told him! Page 43 of the http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf>Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

”Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, | ^ ^ ^ H ^ H | ^ m ^ | ^ | businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.”

Those 16 words Bush used in the SOTU were not then, are not now and never will be a lie!

Bill in AZ

heh - SunnyDay - here is the launch of the USS Bill Clinton - thanks to his budget cuts.


Rocco - I looked up Robert Scheer once (on top of your list), suspecting he was a howling moonbat. He truly is - but WooHoo!!! - under google I had to wade through bikini sites where I had NO IDEA they made bikini's that small! Made the trip through the fever swamp worth it.


It can be a burden at times eh? Whatever you do...DON'T google up Barney Frank!

Well my vacations over, back to the Enchanted Kingdom tomorrow...nite all!


USS Bill Clinton - hilarious!!

My Dad was retired Army (he's deceased). My Mom was going through cancer treatment at Portsmouth Naval Hosp. when they took access away from retirees and their dependants. She was forced out into the civilian system - I went crazy trying to find doctors who would take another medicare patient (they don't want them). This was in the 90's. Clintoon.pfffffffffft


"Agreed, but again, the point is that the Iraq war makes the threat to use that military considerably less convincing to those we threaten."

Why was the Iraq war lost? I missed the helicopters lifting off the Baghdad Embassy roof.
This depends on what kind of war is waged,so far the "Don't Frighten the Kiddies" has been the strategy,but there is some really awsome power available at sub-nuclear level.Anyone who thinks the light touch applied to Iraq will be used on Iran is foolish.Examine the war in the Pacific.

"In fact, I suspect one of the obstacles any decision to attack Iran will face will come from the military itself. I know that that in itself is not so unusual, but I suspect the intensity of the opposition would be quite unusual".

Of course the military will oppose it,no commander ever wishes to put his men into battle(see John Keegan)But you ar4e using your useual I suspect,on what knowledge is your suspicion based?

Posted by: Jeff | August 19, 2006 at 07:47 PM

The problem for any administration is that all future foes have studied the Vietnam war and the political ju-jitsu the Soviet Union used against US foreign policy via the left(see John Kerry VVAW)
Ahmadinejad in his interview with Wallace spoke directly to the left over the headsof your democratically elected government.Judging by the reaction from Kos,not as politically or numerically powerful as they would believe,who were having orgasms under their burqas,ant US government is going to have a serious problem conducting any foreign policy.
Once an opponent has the rhetoric of the Democratic party down pat,that when in their utterances nary a pin would fit between them,any elected givernment has problems.
In the final analysis Iran knows it can play the left like a cheap fiddle,that is what emboldens Iran and makes the military option less credible.It work in Vietnam,it will likely work in the Middle East,viz the fine work done by Kennedy,Kerry,Biden,Murtha,Pelosi,Durbin et al,it wasn't long before even al Qaeda started using the same script writer.
Well done the peace warriors of the left,you shall have peace - of submission,slavery or the grave.


I voted for Bush twice and wish him well but I am totally dismayed at his complete lack of effective communication skills. With such a hostile media, connecting with the American people is so important. I agree it started with the odious Wilson and the ineffective response to his lies. But acutally, I think it started earlier. His State of the Union address in January 04 was uninspiring and didn't lead to any bump; highly unusual. It's been downhill since.

I am hoping for Guilliani in 08. He would be tough in the war on terror, handle the media effectively, and communicate with the American people well. His liberal views on social issues are not particularly important to me. The war on terror and leading that effort and communicating its goals and progress are most important.


I believe that the air campaign in Iran will be completed more quickly than was the campaign in Serbia and with fewer civilian casualties, although that fact is of minimal importance.


While I agree with your assessment, one thing troubles me about the potential bombing of Iran. Right now the Iranian people are on our side. They hate their president almost as much as the left hates George Bush. If we bomb them they will rally around their president and we will lose that support, probably forever. That is a lot to lose.

(while writing this I realized that should we be bombed in the same way, the left probably would not rally around out president in the same way.)


Right now the Iranian people are on our side.

Doubt they're "on our side". They likely would prefer more modern governance. The theocracy may not be difficult to take down with the bombing equivalent of a head shot.

The Iranian people won't like it but they'll be happy with the result.


Jane said:"Wouldn't it be nice to meet a liberal who actually had an idea or two. This is a difficult time. Too bad half the country is brain dead."

Sorry Jane but they have had "ideas". Don't you remember how Mad Albright and Jimmy Carter fixed everything in North Korea. I think that could be the setting for PUK's musical. Maybe jeffry can write the script for us! We could have the missiles morphing into song birds as they whistle by!

otherTom said:"One thing you'll notice about Jeff is that he is extremely long on whining and defeatism, and extremely short on sensible and constructive suggestions."

Well OT, you have to expect this with liberals. If it wasn't the war, it's Global Warming, and if it's not GW it's the other GW. And then there's AIDS, Women's Rights, Katrina, the Poor, Corporate Greed, Animal Rights, Hate Crime, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum!

Face it these types spend their lives complaining, and don't have one constructive idea how to solve them. Notice how during the 8 years that they were in power, everything was just fine. I would respect them if I ever heard a peep during those years. But they've been trained to hate anything that isn't instituted by the Democrats/liberals. Their shallow allegiance to their causes speaks volumes!


So two questions for you all: 1. Do you think Social Security is an injustice, or is the problem with Social Security solely that it is on shaky fiscal grounds? 2. If you were convinced that Social Security were in perfect fiscal shape for the imaginable future, would you drop the support for reform?

1. I don't believe SS is unjust, I believe it was unconstitutional. However, at this stage of the game, you can't yank it.

2. If I was convinced SS was in perfecet fiscal shape for the imaginable future, I would still support reform. I liked some aspects of the president's plan.


Someone upthread made the comment about today's liberals not being classic liberals. That is true. They are socialists but know they can't win elections using that term. At some point they became progressive liberals. Sounds better doesn't it? Same agenda, but hidden behind a phrase that is hiding what they are.

These same people talk about fighting the WOT in a 'better' way. They are not serious. We are at war. War was declared on us. And they want to prosecute terrorism with subpoenas and lawyers. Myself, I prefer guns and generals.


"And then the masses will have their minds changed because they'll interpret it as g-d's direction to turn in another direction?"

Interesting. I see Jeff typing "g-d". Only Jews, as far as I know, type g-d or G-d....


SS was unconstitutional, but that's not the worst of it. It was never intended to become the monster it is today. Just look at the liberals idea of now extending it further to cover "illegal" immigrants!

Here's a funny email I got this morning:

July 31, 2006
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My reasons for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill that was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.

If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, what I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for my family and me because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter
would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Samuel F. Chatman

It would be really funny if it were'nt so true!


I finally forced myself to read Sy Hersh's "devastating" article. I couldn't help but wonder who all those former and current intelligence and state officials he kept quoting, without naming, were.

After visiting the link upthread to Larry's article at HuffPo, I have my own theory as to who at least on of the unnamed former offials is.

Other Tom

I confess to being mystified by Jeff's rants about Social Security; perhaps I missed his initial post on the subject. It seems crystal clear to me that the system in its current form can't be sustained, and that Bush's proposal for a small portion of payroll taxes going into personal accounts was a genuine effort at constructive reform. Reasonable minds can differ about the viability of that plan, but it seems silly to cast it as something offered in other than good faith. In fact, nearly identical proposals have been offered from time to time by Democrats going back to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The hysterical reaction to Bush's proposal is simply another manifestation of Bush Derangement Syndrome.


Sept 1, we will see a change on many nutroot sites. Perhapse they should've waited until Sept. 11?

No matter but surely that will make many think twice about voting for vulnerability as Hewitt's title is being discussed by many bloggers.


Then Bush's idea of private accounts will become the main idea of democrats when they have majority control of the House and Senate.

Fight Bush until they win, then they push Bush's idea as their own and pat themselves on their back....as their original idea.


Sept 1st - I'm glad they are showing their hand now.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Do you think Social Security is an injustice...'

Is a Ponzi scheme that everyone is forced into entering an injustice?


Hez night vision gear came from UN


I read Mona Charen's editorial in my local Sunday paper. Her headline said "How Do You Fight An Enemy That Isn't Afraid To Die?" My first instinct was to agree with that. But on second thought, it isn't accurate. The members of our military are not "afraid" to die, they just don't "want" to die. That is the difference, IMO. The enemy wants to die. 72 raisins await them.


The theocracy may not be difficult to take down with the bombing equivalent of a head shot.


Actually a "head shot" of Ahmadinajihad would do the trick just fine. If we take out the president, everyone wins.


How interesting that Jeffs diatribe on the war suddenly turned to social security as soon as we asked him for his plan for victory.


"How Do You Fight An Enemy That Isn't Afraid To Die?"

One extends as much assistance as possible,the Japanese were not afraid to die,neither were the SS divisions of Nazi Germany,and die they did,easy really.


jane - re Jeff's change of subject - my thought all along. When they cannot answer a question, they redirect your attention.


"How interesting that Jeffs diatribe on the war suddenly turned to social security as soon as we asked him for his plan for victory."

I "suspect" he had forgotten to cash his cheque.


"Is a Ponzi scheme that everyone is forced into entering an injustice?'

Yeah, uh huh. And if they ever 'flat tax'
us and remove the financial incentives for
contributing to charitable organizations,
that 'Ponzi Scheme' which provides goods and
services to those who are not independently
wealthy, will also receive the fate deserves.

On the postive side. the better-offs will be able to have more toys and disposable income to spend on themselves. So,that Ponzi scheme, which provides survivor benefits to orphans and widows, disability benefits to those who have none through their employers,
will have their ill-gotten gains replaced with the pre-SS system so unjustly usurped
by the radical Rooseveltian Ponzi Scheme.



Jeff is an interesting person. I enjoy him. He is generally polite, if not a little snarky, something I am also guilty of, so complaining about that aspect of his personality would be, well, hypocritical of me. He is a typical person on the left (he probably sees me as a typical person on the right). They suffer from BDS. Anything they argue starts with the theory that Bush is worse than Imahamsandwich. Thoughtful criticism of the war in Iraq and the general war on terrorism is wanted and welcome. But that is not the objective. If Bush is seen as winning in Iraq and/or winning on the WOT, they will not win elections. Their social agendas, what they are really fighting for, have fallen flat with the voters. To get their power back, in order to further their social agendas, they have to tear down Bush. They are not serious about fighting a war, they are, however, serious about fighting Bush.


Of course it is rediredt. Remember the Rules of Disinformation. Jeff's abrupt change of subject is Specter's View Rule #1 or Rule #17 from the list. Refresh your memories here.


I admit I wanted Jeff to answer this:

One of my fears is that nothing can be done that needs to be done as long as this administration is in office, and that is still for a long time.

What is it that needs to be done?



You see you are ignoring history again. When SS was started there were quite a few people paying into the system for every person getting money out. That worked well. But over the years - what with our longevity increasing and the baby boomers retiring - the number paying in is like 4 or 5 to 1 person getting money out. If the trend continues without help, the system will become insolvent. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is fact.

The problem is that nobody wants to take a realistic view of the fact. The Republicans have tried, but their plans don't garner much support. The Democrats have put forward absolutely no plans (imagine that). Meanwhile we keep doing the "band-aid" thing and people that were brought up believing the government was taking care of them with SS are living on the edge when they retire.

BTW - love your comments about the rich. Very typical Democratic talking point. It's always the rich vs. the poor. The typical platform of the left: Let's See how much more divided we can make the country." Yep - that's it. Let's see - that's about as true as Ned Lamont being a self-made man. But tell me - more history here - what President had the most millionaires on his cabinet? Can't wait for your answer.


Show of hands. How many think democrats will win back the house in November? The senate?

My vote:

They take the house but republicans maintain the senate.


Why doesn't the Democratic party use all the "married it ,inherited it" wealth they have and simply buy the poor?


I plan to polish some doorknobs for Thelma Drake.


One of my fears is that nothing can be done that needs to be done as long as this administration is in office, and that is still for a long time.

what a freakin joke you are Jeff

the left and the MSM have been attacking all things Bush for 4 years....your little part was an obsession with the Plame case until the Rove/Cheney/Bush indictments failed to materialize

your BDS has made you a tool for our enemies

what's next? impeachment proceedings ??

that'll work...


My vote,I'm coming out early with it and am prepared to eat crow if I am incorrect. Repubs keep both the Hiuse and the Senate and the Write-in candidate foe Delay's old seat wins.


I have stopped responding to Jeff because he will not answer the questions posed to him and does not have a plan for victory to suggest. As far as social security goes Bush had a good plan to saveit, dems cheered against trying to save it-we'll let the people decide.

Cecil Turner

"How Do You Fight An Enemy That Isn't Afraid To Die?"

Er, shoot 'em? (Ask a stupid question . . .) Pretending suicide attacks are novel may make good headlines for the uninformed, but it's fundamentally a waste of time. Besides, the real innovation by jihadists is not the willingness to use kamikaze tactics, but their use of them as proxies in trans-national warfare. (Though how much of that can be called "innovative" is debatable: the basics of using proxies was old before the Cold War.) The question is not "how do you fight an enemy that isn't afraid to die?" but "do you fight an enemy by attacking his proxies, or by hitting the sponsors?" (And, in the case of trans-national organizations supplied by loose confederations of religious charities, who are the main sponsors?)

I think it's fairly obvious that sponsors are the enemy's center of gravity; and agree with the Administration that national sponsors ought to be the focus of effort. Some have proposed an alternate view (citing Jeffrey Record's analysis here), but are relatively quiet on alternative strategy. Should we ignore national-level support for terrorists (even to the logical extreme of providing them with nukes)? Can we effectively interdict their efforts by targeting terror organizations? It seems to me the obvious answer to both is "no," which gives us little choice. That becomes even more apparent when the opposition suggests a moral imperative to treat terror operatives as legitimate combatants or to provide them with federal trials when captured (complete with all civil liberties appropriate to US citizens) . . . or that intelligence gathering is inappropriate if there's even a possibility it might accidentally net a private domestic conversation. With such constraints, it's clear that a strategy based solely on disrupting terror organizations is impractical, even if they weren't supported and sheltered by unfriendly regimes.

Getting back to the political question, I think the Dems could ride the wave of public disenchantment to office, if they could only avoid the security question. Unfortunately for them, that appears impossible. And though recent stories suggest "security moms" are deserting the GOP:

Disaffection with President Bush, the Iraq war, and other concerns such as rising gasoline prices and economic anxiety are proving more powerful in shaping voter attitudes.
Sooner or later, the Dems are going to open their mouths on defense. And when that happens . . .


Cecil, that "security mom" story is so badly written I've been debating all day whether I can even parody it.
BTW the person they interviewed in Ohio to provide the anecdotal linchpin of the tale is apparently a longtime Dem voter (forgot the blog that checked it out, but it was a credible one.)


All the terror sponsoring nations have very efficient security services,why not hold them hostage to the West's safety? If anything happens to us,we blame you,if there is an attack by anybody whatsoever there will be a nasty accident in your country.



I am hoping you are right. As lurker mentioned upthread, the nutroots are launching a 9/1 campaign with one word. Impeachment.


"Jean Thomas, a married mother of one, said she still feels a pang of fear every time she boards an airplane for work travel around the Midwest. "Terrorism," she said, "is the biggest concern on a daily basis."

But she said she is "pretty frustrated with politics driving decisions" in Washington. That is why she said she is strongly considering abandoning her support of Republicans to vote for the Democrats "

But not politics driving opposition.Fake as a four dollar bill.


"nutroots are launching a 9/1 campaign with one word. Impeachment."

They better be sure where the money is comming from,wouldn't do to have the slightest whiff of Iranian backing would it?



What about the Jewish Terrorists? you know the ones that actually kill without a flying fuck about anyone or anything but themselves! who use tanks, helicopter gunships & jetfighters from 20,000 feet to kill civilians because they are dumbass Jews who can't actually aim a fucking gun if their life depended on it!



Sad about these young idiots,in the old days they would have been cannon fodder.


I wish I had the time and energy to cross reference these same posters with what they said about Mel Gibson's remarks. And what they have said about celebrities who spoke out against Bush.

Rick Ballard

If you take a look at Drake's district (VA-2) you will realize just how much smoke is being blown by the Dems. The district went 52/48 in '00, the Dems didn't even put up a candidate in '02 and Drake won in '04 55/45 with a 25K vote plurality. The guy running against her is at best a 'C' level contender - his previous experience is as 'Commissioner of the Revenue' for Virginia Beach.

The only reason VA-2 is on the Dems list is that they need to assert that they are "going after" at least 30 seats. The problem is that there are only 18 Republican seats which might be considerd vulnerable and there are six Democrat seats in the top fifteen list of vulnerables from both parties.

The short answer as to whether the Dems can take the House is "If the election were held next Tuesday, no." That's also the answer that will pertain on November 7th barring an unforseen event.



When you start trolling comments at KOS
or Huffpo, it's time to give the keyboard a rest. ::chuckle::


But tic - those are the same people that you represent talking points from.



Trolling comments? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Rick Ballard


I think tic actually responds only to her inner gerbil. A matter of auditory proximity, if you will.


Sometimes a proctologist has got to do what a proctologist has to do,it's a dirty job,dut somebody has to do it.


some nice Steyn to cheer you all up :)

Seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call “lowest-low” fertility – 1.3 births per woman, the point at which you’re so far down the death spiral you can’t pull out. In theory, those countries will find their population halving every 35 years or so. In practice, it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there’s no point sticking around a country that’s turned into an undertaker’s waiting room. So large parts of the western world are literally dying – and, in Europe, the successor population to those aging French and Dutch and Belgians is already in place. Perhaps the differences will be minimal. In France, the Catholic churches will become mosques; in England, the village pubs will cease serving alcohol; in the Netherlands, the gay nightclubs will close up shop and relocate to San Francisco.



Here is one for you the fatalities in Baghdad population 5,948,800 produced 1,500 fatalities in July.What is the adjusted figure for a city with a comparable population? Say in the US,China India and Europe.


About Jean Thomas:
"There appears to be just one problem. RedState has learned that there aren't too many Jean Thomas's in Columbus, OH. In fact, we're pretty certain the Jean Thomas quoted in the article from Columbus, OH is the same Jean Thomas who has voted in every Democratic primary since 1998. Why are we so sure? Because a source we have gave us enough information to pinpoint which Jean Thomas was talked to and we could go from there to confirm her Democratic voting record.

So, um, what point was VandeHei trying to make again?"


I really do think I have to blog this article..


Thanks for the encouraging words, Rick. Thelma Drake has done a good job. There is some money being spent here against her. The local ads (on cable) are nasty - She doesn't deserve it.

My only beef was over funding for PBS. I think we should cut that money off.

I didn't think Tim Kaine would get elected, heh. Now he can't do anything. We're funny when it comes to politics, huh?

I think when they look at Kaine, they think they did it, and they can see VA going blue.

Rick Ballard


I don't think the comparables work. China has a very efficient system of capital punishment which works very well in keeping the homicide rate down. The US and India are much less efficient and suffer higher rates as a result but I really think that you would have to look at Joburg, SA, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Colombia when the the drug lords were rampant to get an approximation.

If you take aggregate numbers for the US there would be only 27 murders, if you looked at New Orleans, it would be 65 - but if you looked at Lesotho in Africa it would be 700.

Baghdad is a bad neighborhood for the moment but the moment will not last very long.


"When SS was started there were quite a few people paying into the system for every person getting money out."

I thought that Roosevelt said that SS was meant to be treated as a supplement to private savings accounts.

Since then, people quit managing private savings accounts by relying too much on the SS as their own private (retirement) savings accounts.

Good thing that I'm an exception.


"Yeah, uh huh. And if they ever 'flat tax'
us and remove the financial incentives for
contributing to charitable organizations,
that 'Ponzi Scheme' which provides goods and
services to those who are not independently
wealthy, will also receive the fate deserves."

Time for some P.J.

Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another because of the group to which that person belongs-whether it's a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers-individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished. Any time the government gives away goods an d services-even if it gives them away to all people equally-individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people's behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others-tel ling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet-respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished.


A blog post from Lebanon (Beirut)


Will cleown ever get the right idea?

Who knows!



Democrats == help the "needy" that won't help themselves

(Real) Republicans (actually neocons) == help the needy that will help themselves.

Big difference.

Which one is the right concept? Help those that help themselves so that they can begin supporting themselves without relying on help (especially welfare and ss).


I can never understand why- in our culture that celebrates the individual- when it comes to politics we suddenly are "allowed" to group people together as like-thinkers. The black vote, the women's vote. At least security moms are supposed to have security in common, but weren't they once the soccer moms? And who are these people? All of my mom friends have a variety of opinions and vote for very different reasons.

That aside, the newspapers love the pre-election "Some Members of This Group Abandoning Bush" stories. Before the 2004 election, the NYTs blared stories about Vets abandoning Bush, and went to the VFW hall and quoted one guy sitting at the bar as proof of this.
We've seen stories about Bush losing the moms before, too. Remember the sweet gardening neighbor mom that was pushed for the first time ever to protest the war, and so organized a bus trip to DC?

It's utterly useless as any kind of news. Tell us about what the politicians say, stand for, and do. I really don't care about Jean whats'-her-name.


You know all we need is a newspaper then we can make up the headlines we want to hear. It works for Hezbollah and it works for the left. No reason it wouldn't work for the truth.

Lew Clark

Breaking New:

RP (Rightwing Press) Sunday August 20, 2006

Jane Leads Hillary by 96 Points For President in 2008.

In the first ever RP pole of 7 1/2 likely voters, someone named Jane led Hillary Clinton 98% to 2% if the election were held today.

In related news, the New York Times vowed to not mention this person's name between now and November 2008, no matter what the poles show.


Why are the U.S. media doubling the number of Iraqi war dead?


They like me! They really like me!


KM, because of BDS.

Jane, you'd make a better president than Hillary! :)

And you have my vote!


Me too lurker

Jane For President


HAHAHA!! Me too!!


Me, too. (Make Rick Sec of Defense or of Treasury, please.) Soylent would be a great press officer. Keep Rove. We'd lose too much good material if he leaves.


I read in Saturday's (Aug. 19) paper that Judge Walton just denied Libby the use of some classified information at his trail, saying the "documents and information at issue are extremly sensitive and their disclosure could cause serious if not grave harm to the national security of the United States." I'm distracted with other things at the moment, and don't have time to look into it. Anyone know what this is about or have links to the decision?


I saw it, too, but as it's all classified, I have no idea. I expect it has to do with the DPBs.

Lew Clark

We'll keep that guy, but since we've established that Karl Rove is only one of his identities, and is probably not his real name anyway, we'll have a contest to give him a new handle. Then he just keeps on and does all that voodoo he do so well.


I expect you all to serve in my cabinet, even PUK with that silly accent!


Thank you Jane,I'll take the Department of Correct Pronunciation and Spelling.


Oh phew, that takes a load off my shoulders. Now I need someone to run "stop-the-brain-from-leaking-like-a-sieve" department.

Clarice can you be Tony Snow?


I'll take the position of Department of Agriculture. I can spot bull shit a mile away. ::grin::


You got it, and I need some of you to infiltrate the CIA and make sure all those scary Larry types have been expunged!

The comments to this entry are closed.