Powered by TypePad

« Judge In Libby Case Keeps Graymail Alive | Main | Can Lieberman Cherrypick The Senate Reorganization Votes? »

November 15, 2006

Comments

danking70

Democrats "swift-boated" by the NY Times...

TCO

There has been a lot of silliness written (from both sides). Many plans or recommendations lack detail or call for actions that we do not have the capability to make happen ("give the Sunnis a feeling of belonging, etc.) Or at least they lack bottom line specificity.

At this point, though, people are getting more and more clear about the real choices. Decisions like permanent occupation, setting up a strongman, letting the civil war happen, etc., are being more clearly entertained.

Pete

An Iraq debate is a good thing. One would have thought it would have happened before declaring war.

Bob

It did happen Pete, and congress voted on it. Your naive to think that what your hearing now is nothing more than politicking! Your best example is JF'n Kerry when he voted for before he voted against it... and the liberals were right behind him.

Sue

One would have thought it would have happened before declaring war.

Well, since the polls showed that the majority of Americans were in favor of going to war, the political finger was thrust in the air and the need for debate was postponed until a time when the finger in the air said it was time to debate. That would have been when the war was no longer popular.

In other words, take it up with your side.

Paul

Victory.

Well getting rid of Saddam (who would by now have nukes, or be close), Libya's giving up it's WMDs and fingering A.Q. Khan were extremely important victories in the GWOT it would seem.

Historically insurgencies take years to grind down. This is rendered even more difficult by the suicidal PC that has been infecting our culture since the Gramscians successfully infiltrated the media, academia, and the left in general.

Victory ultimately comes when one's enemy's will to resist is crushed. Guess what the election did to our enemy's will to resist relative to ours? That's right. And that means we are going to pay an increased price in blood and treasure as our emenies are strengthened. Way to go F.A.G.s.

danking70

Voted on by a Democratic lead Senate btw...

Pete

There were some Democrats who tried to have a debate, but sadly many of them lacked the courage.

No doubt about that.

On the other hand, the primary drivers of the war had no interest in any kind of meaningful debate (other than conjuring up mushroom cloud visions during a time when the country was already shaken).

Thankfully now things are different. The "cut and run" moniker failed at the polls. Lets have some open and honest dialog, and lets base it on a free flow of information (which is anathema to the Bush administration which prefers to cherry pick based on ideology).

lurker

Too bad that Congress is not willing to consider Iran and Israel.

"There were some Democrats who tried to have a debate, but sadly many of them lacked the courage."

How do you know what the debate would be? And why is that an issue with you? It's a minority that wanted a debate. And they did make the RIGHT choice...to invade Iraq. After all, they did vote to pass the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

lurker

Bush did not cherry pick on intelligence data. Haven't you already forgotten what the democrats said for years about Iraq?

They all said the same thing...that Saddam was a threat and had WMDs, blah, blah.

And there shouldn't be free flow of classified intelligence data.

lurker

Looks like the "cut and run" moniker just may fail.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/15/D8LDKMS80.html

And Zinni and Batiste are objecting to the democrats' "cut and run". Many military people are objecting to the democrats' "cut and run" moniker.

We will probably see far more people moving away from the support of US troop pullout, phased or not.

lurker

I plan to watch Glenn Beck's show tonight.

Pete, you should, too.

lurker

"The "cut and run" moniker failed at the polls."

Correction, it failed at the elections but looks like it's working now with increasing "buyer's remorse".

Pete

A. Q. Khan is living a cozy life in Pakistan, and was not even interrogated by us. The guy who gave away nuclear technology to N Korea (Musharraf himself admitted that) is scott free.

I guess the US voters are now in bed with the terrorists.

Bush has already burned hundreds of billions of dollars and yet today Iraq is a greater threat to peace and stabilility. The Iraq war is Bush's baby, and if someone deserves blame for botching it, it is none other than Bush himself.

lurker

"Bush has already burned hundreds of billions of dollars and yet today Iraq is a greater threat to peace and stabilility. The Iraq war is Bush's baby, and if someone deserves blame for botching it, it is none other than Bush himself."

Hundreds of billions of dollars needed to be burned.

Abizaid, Paul, and several speakers warned us that this war against terrorism will be a long, difficult haul. Abizaid said things are getting better, too. Haven't you forgotten these speeches?

He did not start or create this mess. It is not just Bush's baby either. He did not botch it either.

Give it a break.

SunnyDay

Rush is having a field day.

WTF with Abizaid and Zinni and getting rid of Rumsfeld? Must have been personal. Now they say "stay the course?" What irony.

lurker

Buyer's remorse, SunnyDay?

Pete's statements show his naivette and lack of facts, which brings to non-productive discussions.

SunnyDay

Yeah, Pete and re-Pete. I ignore.

SunnyDay

and look at ABCnews.com headline - I question the timing.

Bob
"There were some Democrats who tried to have a debate, but sadly many of them lacked the courage."

Yeah Pete right... how about the list of the "some democrats" your referring to.

Could one be Kerry... who lost in 2004? If the 2006 elections were a mandate to cut and run, then it would be fair to say that 2004 election gave Bush the mandate for the war. You can't have it both ways.

No wonder you liberals are always wiggling... you're all spineless!

TexasToast

Let me ask - what is "victory"? At one time, the goal was a stable, unified, secular, democratic Iraq. Would we settle for stable and secular and still call it a victory? Stable and unified? Or do we still want it all?

Would the "Regulars" answer Tom's question?

Pete

If anyone in this debacle has been naive, look no further than our Commander in Chief and those who were wildly cheerleading the Iraq war.

Greeted with Roses.
Iraqi Oil will pay substantial costs of reconstruction.
We know where the WMDs are.
Mushroom clouds delivered by drones.
Democracy can be installed with bombs and will solve everything.
We can wage a war on the cheap. It won't even cost 100 Billion.
The war is going to provide peace and stability in the region.

SunnyDay

Rumsfeld is vindicated.

Two-faced jerks, the generals are.

lurker

The cheerleading in Iraq was for the war AGAINST Iraq, whose objective was met in 3 weeks.

There is no cheerleading in the war in Iraq, which is part of the GWOT. No one claimed victory on this war. The democrats will make us lose if they get their way and there will never be peace and stability in the region.

"Let me ask - what is "victory"? At one time, the goal was a stable, unified, secular, democratic Iraq. Would we settle for stable and secular and still call it a victory? Stable and unified? Or do we still want it all?

Would the "Regulars" answer Tom's question?"

It depends on what the democrats manage to wiggle. If they push for the "cut and run" strategy, then we lose. The victory will be on the Islamofascist's side.

What do you want, TexasToast and re-pete?

maryrose

Cut and run sounded good to the netroots because they abhor responsibility and don't want to help others toward a free existence. Evidently Murtha and Pelosi buy this philosophy but what does a botoxed grandmother from liberal San Francisco know. The Olympics and the 49'ers already know when to cut bait and get out of there. Pelosi will see her beloved Golden Gate Bridge attacked by terrorists before she gets a clue. And because they have banned all military there will be no one there to stage a counter-attack. Secede already.

lurker

And the answer to Tom's question is that we want it all. And that is the only choice if we want free existence.

SunnyDay

From the comments section at CQ:

The Democrats think that because they won seats, and won Congress, they have won something good. They have not. Their trophy is a war that is unpopular because of their own efforts, and because of that lack of support there can be no positive accomplishment resulting.

It isn't really funny, but I had to laugh anyway.

azredneck

Pete conveniently forgets, as usual, that the vote FOR the AUMF was overwhelming. Feingold was vary lonely in those days!

Patrick R. Sullivan

The best part of Abizaid's testimony was (I paraphrase): Stay the course, Bush was right then and he's right now. We don't want more troops ala LBJ's escalation of troop strength in Vietnam. That would only result in the Iraqis letting American boys do what Iraqi boys ought to be doing.

(As I was typing the above, Rush was reading my favorite old Semi-Daily Journal post about how much Brad DeLong despises Hillary Clinton. Hee, hee.):

-----------quote-----------
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.
----------endquote----------

Hope the Prof appreciates the Pub.

Bob

Pete... Watch and let us know who is bullshitting who!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfeBROshZ0M&eurl=>What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

Pete

I can also produce selective quotes from George H W Bush, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, Collin Powell, etc about how going into Baghdad would be a huge mistake. Such selective quotes mean nothing.

Bob

It means everything when your making it seem that Bush was alone on this... God your freak'n moonbats are dense!

Oh and to prove your full of shit, let's see those "selective" quotes/clips!

SunnyDay

You would think the dufus would be off celebrating his victory and leave us to console ourselves with chuckles.

SunnyDay

On second thought, do liberals celebrate?

maryrose

pete:
It shows your guys were in favor of deposing Saddam and going to fight the murdering army he employed. You all believed he had WMD's.

Syl

Pete

Lets have some open and honest dialog, and lets base it on a free flow of information (which is anathema to the Bush administration which prefers to cherry pick based on ideology).

Well, actually, the New York Times controls the debate in this country and does plenty of its own cherry picking. The Bush administration has spent most of its time putting out fires.

And, no, I'm not saying that's a good thing.

Syl

This is what I love about the Left---their brutal honesty and transparency in showing their motives:

The Iraq war is Bush's baby, and if someone deserves blame for botching it, it is none other than Bush himself.

And you're gonna make damn sure that Iraq is botched by calling it a failure and pulling out so you can blame Bush.

I love it. LOL

Pete

Syl - Bush has called the shots on Iraq and he still does. He got a free hand on Iraq.

I (or liberals) did not call the shots on Iraq. Bush did. Bush was in charge of planning, he was in charge of execution. Which is why the buck should stop at his desk.

Syl

TM: Let me ask - what is "victory"? At one time, the goal was a stable, unified, secular, democratic Iraq. Would we settle for stable and secular and still call it a victory? Stable and unified? Or do we still want it all?

TT: Would the "Regulars" answer Tom's question?

I think of the millions of people who live in Iraq compared to the thousands who are engaged in violence and I'm more firm than ever that I want it all.


Bob
pete's first post of the day...


An Iraq debate is a good thing. One would have thought it would have happened before declaring war.

Posted by: Pete | November 15, 2006 at 09:34 AM

jeeeze pete you really need to see someone about this ADD problem of yours. You questioned if there was a discussion, and if you look at the dates in the video, most of these were pre-war as well as pre the 2004 elections. The point is the decision was as much the Democrats as it was Bush. But now as typical of a spineless liberal you use it against bush, and then turn it into a discussion about the success of the war. History is the only version of a wars success, and not the "cut and run" mentality of the left. Please weren't all you pansies moving to Canada anyway!

Syl

Pete

Which is why the buck should stop at his desk.

I repeat: And you're gonna make damn sure that Iraq is botched by calling it a failure and pulling out so you can blame Bush.

Terrye

Pete:

Free hand my ass. Bush was supported right up until it was politically advantageous for the Democrats to turn on him.

I remember Al Gore saying that it was time we had a day of reckoning with Saddam, this time on our terms. If I remember right that was September 2002.

And Clinton, hell I remember Clinton going on Letterman and blowing off about how the whole thing would be over with in three weeks.

I also remember him saying that it would be dangerous to let Saddam go, to let him get away with his crimes.

Dangerous.

One thing we do know for sure and that is when the Democrats were actually in the White House they did not resolve the situation. To hear Democrats talk about it today one would think they had it all figured out and then Bush came along and came up with this crazy war stuff.

This is from Big Lizards :

And what exactly should be the goals of these new American forces? Rather, "Coalition" forces... assuming there are any countries left in the West besides us who can actually fight. The Times answers that question:

* Reduce Iraqi unemployment;

* Secure Iraq's borders with both Iran and Syria;

* "Enlist more cooperation" from tribal sheikhs -- in the Iraq frontier, primarily in the province of Anbar;

* Weaken or crush the militias -- which primarily plague "the capital," i.e., Baghdad.

Finally, Kenneth M. Pollack, a Brookings Institution guy, argues that pulling out now will make a bona-fide civil war inevitable; as Wikipedia puts it, "the Brookings Institution is a center-left think tank, based in Washington, D.C.... currently headed by Strobe Talbott."

This is precisely the fig leaf the Democrats can use, if they choose, to turn on a dime and give a nickle change. Especially if the Iraq Study Group (the Jim Baker commission) recommends a troop increase, as I suspect they will, instead of a pull-out: then the momentum for sending in a bunch of troops to secure borders, borderlands, and Baghdad will become irresistable.

At least, let's keep our fingers crossed: not only will it make the war infinitely more winnable than if we were to pull out prematurely (like Onan did) -- which is the most important consideration -- but secondarily, it will enrage the nutroots and cause them to go all-out to force a Kossack wack-job on the party as the 2008 presidential nominee. I don't know if they'll succeed... but I like the idea of la bataille royale within the Democratic Party for the next two years!

One more thing; take a look at the last line from our previous post:

By the way... if I'm right, and the Democrats are willing to go for a change in this direction instead of insisting on that direction, then I predict they will also go ahead and confirm Robert Gates as SecDef.

And compare to Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%) "top priority" that we quoted from an AP story yesterday:

[110th Congress Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid told The Associated Press that a top priority for the remainder of the lame-duck session will be confirming Robert Gates as defense secretary, succeeding Donald H. Rumsfeld. "The sooner we can move it forward the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld," he said.

Terrye

According to some people {like Brookings} if the US pulls out there will be a huge humanitarian crisis.

Now if the Democrats know this and vote for retreat anyway..who gets blamed for the resulting ethnic cleansing?

My guess is the Democrats will try to blame it on Bush. Like Pete said, that is where the buck stops.

It is his baby...so if they vote for withdrawal and things really go to hell they blame it all on Bush and play it up in the next election cycle. Works for them.

Nice people.

Pete

Some folks here are under the mistaken assumption that those opposed to the war are responsible for losing the war. It is a convenient crutch. Should we start blaming the opponents of all failed policies for the failure of those policies?

The argument is totally bogus. As bogus as an argument that Communism died not because of its inherent flaws but because there were poeople opposed to it.

Bush has had a free hand. Did someone stop him from planning this war? Did someone stop him from executing this war? No on both counts. Bush got all the money he asked for. He got all the troops he needed.

Syl

Pete

Some folks here are under the mistaken assumption that those opposed to the war are responsible for losing the war.

No, Pete. It's a matter of whether one believes the war is ALREADY lost or not.

If you believe the war is ALREADY lost then you can't blame those opposed to it.

If you believe the war is NOT lost, then you can blame those opposed to the war for making us pull out which will result in our LOSING the war.


Barney Frank

Some folks here are under the mistaken assumption that those opposed to the war are responsible for losing the war.

Some folks here are under the mistaken assumption that a war in which a few enemy combatants are still able to pop a shot off occasionally or detonate a roadside bomb is lost.
The sad and sick thing is not that people like this think the war is lost it's that they want the war to be lost.

Terrye

Pete:

When the enemy celebrates the Democrats winning it kind of speaks for itself.

Pete

Fine, Syl we can disagree on that.

But so far (starting from 2002 when Bush started the Iraq war planning) and upto the next two years (until Jan 2009) Bush has been and will be calling the shots.

My prediction - W will finally start listening to Dad who will try to bail him out.

Pofarmer


Actually pete, the commanders on the ground have been calling the shots.

You got a taste of that today from Abizaid in the MSM. They haven't been covering it up untill now, conveniently, but it's been up on defenselink and some other military sites.

It will be interesting to watch the Dims turn policies on a dime now that they actually have to listen to the guys on the ground and not the armchair generals.

It will also be interesting to watch the MSM try to respin the whole thing, once it becomes clear to even the Dimmest that pulling out would be a disaster. The winds are already starting to blow that way.

SunnyDay

liberals gave the insurgents hope. liberals helped the insurgents hang on - just like Viet Nam. We didn't lose - we quit.

liberals gave the insurgents reason to kill more Americans. Insurgents knew, if they were violent enough, liberals would convince the American public to cut and run.

They fed off each other. the more libs played it up, the more the terrorists killed.


Liberals did everything in their power to stop Bush from preventing more attacks.

liberals did everything in their power to claim constitutional rights for terrorists who want to kill us all.

liberals did everything in their power to portray the American armed forces as cold-blooded killers, torturers and war criminals.

terrorists used this portrayal to incite more killings of American troops.

liberal media gave away our secrets. the liberal lefties cheered them on.

PeterUK

"A. Q. Khan is living a cozy life in Pakistan, and was not even interrogated by us. The guy who gave away nuclear technology to N Korea (Musharraf himself admitted that) is scott free".

A Khan is a citizen of Pakistan Pete,which US law did he break? No doubt there were "informal" discussions at some none-judicial level,but basically Pete,there is nothing that you can do.

Pofarmer

I don't think I'm gonna like their definition of "middle class". From http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=139587

"Middle class prosperity is a crucial issue to me -- that means tax justice, a livable minimum wage, the right to organize a labor union," he said.

Are middle class people normally making minimum wage? I never knew how rich I was.

Just think, I could have skipped all the college and stuff and just let the Dims up the minimum wage for me.

John al Qerri

Our new twin track approach,"Cut and Stay,Fight and Run",or was it "Run and Stay,Cut and Fight","Cut and Thrust",whichever, is already beginning to pay rich dividends with the media,which can identify with the strong leadership policies of the Democrats.

Moose

Some questions:
Zinni and Batiste were interviewed by whom and when?
Why didn't Fox News or conservative bloggers interview these guys before the election asking the same questions?

Also this shows that the liberal media outfoxed the small and ineffective conservative media. Maybe this is the lesson learned from the '06 elections.

John al Qerri

"Democracy can be installed with bombs and will solve everything."

Worked for Germany and Japan.

pagar

Along with hundreds of thousands of others, I was
in one of the wars that the Democrats managed to turn into defeat for the US. Their campaign
was led by John Kerry and supported by a group of Democrat congressmen who cut off the funds
the South Vietnamese needed to survive. Now they have added to their ranks, John Murtha,
Sen Rockefeller, and a great many others.
Courage is not an admirable trait in their
minds. Here's how the Americans against America defeated the US in Vietnam. It worked for the Communists in North Vietnam. It will work for the enemies of America in Iraq, if America lets it

""""""How North Vietnam Won The War
Bui Tin Interviewed by Stephen Young

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.

Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. """"""

Read the rest at:
http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm

Sue


Also this shows that the liberal media outfoxed the small and ineffective conservative media.

Maybe these generals outfoxed themselves. Maybe they wouldn't talk to Fox or other conservative outlets until after the election. They wanted Rumsfeld gone, but at what price?

SunnyDay

pagar - so true. Americans who hate America, who think we should not be strong, we should not win - that somehow it's evil.

The infuriating things is, most likely our tax dollars paid the professors and teachers who instilled this point of view in our younger generation.

MayBee

Sue- Yeah, for me TM's posts have moved and the sidebar disappears and reappears.

MayBee

Sue-
My answer to you is posted before your comments.
I question the timing.

lurker

U.S. commander warns against Iraq cutoff

And Rumsfeld had been listening to them all along.

Dang that Hillary woman, Jack Reed, and McCain!!

How did they get this hearing set up so fast?

lurker

Daddy isn't there to help his son. Daddy was not aware of this ISG. In last night's Brit Hume show, this was mentioned. ISG was formed by Congress and includes 5 former Republicans and 5 former democrats.

Bob

No Sue, it's not you! The New Democratic Congress can even "cut and run" the clock...

lurker

Examing the consequences of "redeployment"

Bob

They really are messing with things!

Sue wrote: (check the times)

Okay, so now it looks like I've lost my mind. My post at 2:44 PM was posted a minute before my post at 3:45 PM.

Posted by: Sue | November 15, 2006 at 03:46 PM

then I posted:

No Sue, it's not you! The New Democratic Congress can even "cut and run" the clock...

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 at 03:17 PM

Bob

Sue... quick give winner at Belmont in the 5th!

lurker

Military Reality, Meet Political Expediency

Sounds like Carl Levin is not willing to listen to the commanders.

cathyf
Let me ask - what is "victory"? At one time, the goal was a stable, unified, secular, democratic Iraq. Would we settle for stable and secular and still call it a victory? Stable and unified? Or do we still want it all?
"Victory" means that "infidels" (i.e. Christians, Jews, animists, pagans, athiests, etc.) are allowed to live in peace in a world where there are no significant numbers of people who believe that God will reward them for killing us, enslaving us, and/or converting us. The only question outstanding is whether it will be possible to achieve that victory without committing genocide against Muslims on a scale unimaginable in the 20th century.

I'm not so sure about a unified Iraq, although I think it would be an important destabilizing influence on the jihadis. I think democracy is not optional -- democracy everywhere has been a highly corrosive force against murderous nihilism. It gives people too many choices and hopes for the future, and drives a wedge between all of the not-crazy and the nihilists.

M. Simon

We can't cut and run.

It would be defiance of the UN.

M. Simon

It is now 3:35 PM

SunnyDay

Zinni and Batiste were interviewed by whom and when?

Got c-span? They testified before a congressional committee today.

lurker

Did you hear what Nancy Pelosi said at Georgetown University?

She claims that the taxes of middle class families will increase next year because the Republicans failed to deal with AMT. Oh, hell, the democrats obstructed the Republicans from making changes to AMT.

Sue

Maybee,

My sidebar is disappearing also. But it isn't completely gone, it is underneath the post a comment section. Weird...

Sue

Strange and weird things have been going on today with typepad. Now Sunny is going back to the future.

Sue

Okay, so now it looks like I've lost my mind. My post at 2:44 PM was posted a minute before my post at 3:45 PM.

lurker

Looks like this may be fixed by now.

Anyone watching Glenn Beck?

Man, the propaganda shown in ME...no wonder they hate us so much.

SunnyDay

Calling Art Bell - we have a time warp.

richard mcenroe

Of course, Zinni wants a prolonged involvement. If we pull out, and draw down our forces as the Democrats are sure to do, where will he and First Command find the gullible young enlisted men to sell their crap annuities and funds to?

Tom Maguire

Why didn't Fox News or conservative bloggers interview these guys before the election asking the same questions?

Also this shows that the liberal media outfoxed the small and ineffective conservative media.

Well, anyway Rep who complains that he lost because the MS media was against him may as well complain that he lost becuase the sun rose in the East. Bush and his supporters had to know in 2002 that the media would be the first deserters in this war, and should have planned accordingly.

That said, I have been fooling around with Lexis to see what Zinni was saying before the election (he might have kept quiet, figuring his message would only throw Rumsfeld a rope, but I doubt it).

However, Lexis is not working for me right now.

Pofarmer

Sounds like Carl Levin is not willing to listen to the commanders

And this is a great surprise? Why?

pagar

""gullible young enlisted men"
Where have I heard that type of comment before? Oh yes,"get an education or get stuck in Iraq" John Kerry.
From veteranstoday.com
Top Story of the Week


President Bush Awards Medal of Honor To Marine Who Lost His Life Saving Friends From Grenade

by Michael M. Phillips

QUANTICO, Va. -- Cpl. Jason Dunham, a charismatic kid from small-town America, received the Medal of Honor for sacrificing himself to protect his fellow Marines from an Iraqi hand grenade.

President Bush announced the award -- the country's highest honor for military valor -- at the opening of the Marine Corps museum here. It would have been Cpl. Dunham's 25th birthday.

"As far back as boot camp, his superiors spotted the quality that would mark this young American as an outstanding Marine: His willingness to put the needs of others before his own," Mr. Bush said. "As long as we have Marines like Cpl. Dunham, America will never fear for its liberty."

On patrol on April 14, 2004, Cpl. Dunham found himself engaged in hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent near the Syrian border. When his attacker dropped a live hand grenade, the Marine made the split-second decision to cover the weapon with his own helmet, shielding two of his men from its full explosive force... read full story

Was he young? yes
He and so many others. Heros, doing what so many can't even imagine doing. God bless them all.

stan

You folks a deluded or in denial if you think that NYTimes article points to anything other than a quagmire in Iraq. What the article reinforced in soo may ways is that there is no goverment in Iraq that the US can tell "get your act together because we are leaving soon". The Iraqization that BushCo attempted resulted in a failed state immediately upon its formation. Gee whiz I seem to recall screaming that this would happen at the top of my lungs in Jan 2003.

stan

"On patrol on April 14, 2004, Cpl. Dunham found himself engaged in hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent near the Syrian border. When his attacker dropped a live hand grenade, the Marine made the split-second decision to cover the weapon with his own helmet, shielding two of his men from its full explosive force"

It's very strange. This same story has been told in every war since (at least) WW II. Hmmm

Specter

Uh huh stan. And what were these same generals saying before the election? And the same NYT? Would you like about a half a million quotes on how we "had to get out"? That is what the dems ran on. Getting out of Iraq. Care to explain to us oh so intelligent stan why the latest IP/Ipsos poll (which was oversampled with democrats - again - see here) shows that 57% of Americans think the Dems have no plan for Iraq? There is a simple explanation - let's see if you can figure it out....

Specter

Make that AP/Ipsos....

stan

Specter

If you want my help don't act like such a whiney child.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame