Powered by TypePad

« Voter Suppression | Main | Poll Watching »

January 08, 2008


Rick Ballard

Given that the lefter wing appears to be taking over from the left wing, what's a committed Copperhead to do? If Hussein pivots tomorrow he's going to run into himself and out of a big chunk of support.

Besides, isn't he getting ready to unveil his plan to invade Pakistan with the UN army?


I've been out checking out assisted living facilities, soooo...

From a few threads back:

Rick: I thought that's what you were getting at, and I think it's very true. He's right off the same page as Hillary, it seems.

Other Tom: impressive use of Latin. Most people manhandle the lingo and are better off staying away from it in web posting (clamentis should = clamantis from clamare; minor typo).

JMH: Re Michelle Obama and what I've been hearing, I'm hearing that she posts at JOM as Laura Nelson (few threads back = hates white folks).


You ARE joking, anduril about Laura Nelson?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Complementing this post, Greg Mankiw links to one about economic defeatism, in Europe's Philosophy of Failure:

...French students are...learning that economic progress is also the root cause of social ills. For example, a one-year high school course on the inner workings of an economy developed by the French Education Ministry called Sciences Economiques et Sociales, spends two thirds of its time discussing the sociopolitical fallout of economic activity. Chapter and section headings include “Social Cleavages and Inequality,” “Social Mobilization and Conflict,” “Poverty and Exclusion,” and “Globalization and Regulation.” The ministry mandates that students learn “worldwide regulation as a response” to globalization. Only one third of the course is about companies and markets, and even those bits include extensive sections on unions, government economic policy, the limits of markets, and the dangers of growth. The overall message is that economic activity has countless undesirable effects from which citizens must be protected.

No wonder, then, that the French default attitude is to be suspicious of market forces and private entrepreneurship, not to mention any policies that would strengthen them. Start-ups, Histoire du XXe siècle tells its students, are “audacious enterprises” with “ill-defined prospects.” Then it links entrepreneurs with the tech bubble, the Nasdaq crash, and mass layoffs across the economy. (Think “creative destruction” without the “creative.”) In one widely used text, a section on technology and innovation does not mention a single entrepreneur or company. Instead, students read a lengthy treatise on whether technological progress destroys jobs.

You can't be a leftist without being a loser. And proud of it.


Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation

Stubborn cowboys!


Joke? Me??

I'm not generally a big VDH fan, but I share this view:

Hillary is not comatose, but instead at a crossroads. If she distances herself from Bill, goes silent about her First Lady years, stops the play-safe, don’t-blow-it-fourth-quarter strategy, and instead takes risks, talks about what she’s going to do in simple, blunt terms, gives more interviews, answers impromptu questions at her campaign stops, jettisons the canned laugh for real give and take, she could recover in two weeks.

Left unsaid is that America will soon — thanks to input from the shadows from various hitmen from the Clinton 1992/1996 team — be hearing a lot more details about the relatively unknown life and views of one Barrack Obama and those around him.

Right now voters know almost everything about Hillary and are troubled by that knowledge; they know almost nothing about Obama, and are happy for that ignorance — but that too can change, since she has nothing left to disclose or lose, he everything.



American Idol

The Barack Obama phenomenon puzzles me. I recognize that he is a handsome, articulate politician who seems, for the moment at least, to have the capacity to square circles. In recent months I’ve asked my students and former students, who are exceptionally thoughtful young people, whom they were supporting for president. Roughly three-quarters of them, including some who described themselves as independents or Republicans, support Obama, almost all with enthusiasm.

When I asked why they liked him, their responses, even from those who were articulate, were almost all vague. Race played some role in their views, but it didn’t seem to be primary. Mostly they told me about their disdain for both President Bush and the Democratic Congress, and the need for “change,” with little elaboration as to what that change would be.


Among the younger people I’ve talked to, he draws adulation from both starry-eyed young liberals and those who see him as beyond partisan politics. That’s an impressive feat, a tribute to his ability to project an image of rectitude unsullied by the ordinary trench warfare of politics. But there is a two part question that seems to stop all of the Obama admirers, young or old, that I’ve talked to in their tracks. Can he, I ask, govern? Could he be a commander in chief? The most common reactions, I get is “that’s beside the point,” or “I’m not sure,” or “I haven’t thought about that,” or “you’ve got a point, but . . . .” The election to date—with Huckabee as Obama’s GOP counterpart—is turning into an episode of American Idol where the performance is the thing, albeit with a religious twist.


The dems have gone with a monolithic stance that Iraq 'is and always will be bad'.

(Small note to hrc-if your position is the same as a more charismatic opponent, you will lose.)

Hillary had a chance to shape the message but chose a populist stance (among dems) and was too mild in supporting ongoing operations in Iraq. would it have been politcal suicide? Joe lieberman could answer that one best.

Trying to beat obama and edwards for the 60% anti war dems, abandoned the other 40%.

Her last chance is to attack obama on his naivette, regarding Iraq, which might have been a better strategy had she gone with it all along.


Ann Althouse has the goods on Ron Paul. If you are shockable, prepare to be shocked. Ron Paul is a bigot. And finished as a Presidential candidate when this circulates.

Here is the gist:

Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks."...

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters....

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke....


The NR ot Nation ran with that today. Unfortunately, it is very old news. All of this was reported a long time ago. Paul's answer is that this newsletter was written by someone over his name and he never read it. He said he takes responsibility for not having paid attention but these newsletters fo not represent his views.
OTOH as far as I can tell most of his supporters are leftists or truthers so it should make no difference to them.


Here is more from pajamasmedia on Herr Paul:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php>An Enlightened Libertarian or a Racist Paranoid Kook?


I discussed with PM doing an article on this several months ago and abandoned the notion because there was nothing new to the story. If you go to FR, it's been there along with the newsletters for over a year.


I am pretty plugged OR at least I like to think so and it is the first time I have heard this.

Would explain why he would not return the contributions of white supremicists though wouldn't it.

Leftists like to think there is a distinction between lefties and fascists. I think its hard to slip a piece of paper between the two, but it will probably drive away the lefties who are not just trying to make trouble. And even the paranoid conspiracists, may struggle to support a drooling racist.

I say he is done as this will go MSM within days.

JM Hanes

"Left unsaid is that America will soon — thanks to input from the shadows from various hitmen from the Clinton 1992/1996 team — be hearing a lot more details about the relatively unknown life and views of one Barrack Obama and those around him."

I suspect the problem for Clinton is that the game plan was to make it look like the slams were coming from the Republican camp. The shadow hitmen are now practically begging someone, anyone, to come and get the oppo they can't even seem to give away (see, Shaheen). Unfortunately, the Republicans are, unexpectedly, too busy grappling with each other to take the Obama bait when it -- also unexpectedly -- counts. The basic quandry is soooo compounded by Hillary's 2nd place status and Obama's big MO. Not only will she have a hard time credibly blaming Republican attack dogs for the pain, the surrogates she's always relied on have already been identified as such (see, Shaheen, Wolfson, Blumenthal...) this time around the barn. If she wants to take down Obama, she's going to have to do it herself, personally, and destroy the very persona she's spent her public career creating.

If there is, in fact, real dirt to dish, we should see it by super Tues., no? I'm not actually convinced there is -- I think a big part of the Clinton plan was to promulgate the sorriest smears they could come up with, as much to give Hillary ammo against the vast & vicious right wing conspiracy as to knock out the opponent she thought she would already be beating. Am I the only one who wouldn't be surprised if she had actually planned to position herself as a beleaguered Barack's defender? That political calculation seems pretty simple to me. That "Look what we Democrats have done" moment in her Iowa wrap up was probably already on the prompter when she thought she'd be accepting kudos for a victory. She expected to be calling for unity against the Republican foe. No wonder she's been off her game. She's suddenly playing on an entirely different board designed by someone else. And that's a real change!


JMHanes, I think that is precisely right.

Rick Ballard

Very nice, JMH.

I just saw Rolodex on Fox - they are definitely putting out a SOS to Cueball and Forehead. I imagine that the checks haven't cleared as yet.

I've read that Hussein's security detail has been beefed up. I sure hope that's true.


For those who .




Like "Fred".

Appalled Moderate


Floating around the internet are these Ron Paul quotes:

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably-fleet-footed they can be.” [Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96]

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” [Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96]

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” [Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96]

“The Criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to fight the power, to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against The Man.’” [Victoria Advocate, 8/7/96]

Unfortunately, the Victoria Advocate archives on line only go back to 1999 and don't reference these quotes. Love to know if someone in that part of Texas could verify these quotes as actually coming from Paul and put a stake in this guy.


"Lacking such a pivot, the Dems may be vulnerable on national security yet again."

The Dems are not vulnernable on national security for lack of a pivot. The Dems are vulnerable on national security because they are cowards.

Obama is about to secure the nomination. He's the Democrat Democrats want to be President. And he has consistently criticized Hillary Clinton - to the delight of his fanbase - for her vote to authorize the war in the first place.

Democrats don't believe in fighting America's enemies - as evidenced by the Democrats support of Obama.

They don't want to fight. They think killing our enemies is immoral.

And that's why they're vulnerable on national security.

Pivots have nothing to do with it.

Other Tom

I confess to the typo, Anduril, but I think I may have committed a more serious mistake: I think I should have said clamandum (the gerunidve).

I spent four years doing this stuff, but the last of those years was 1956, so I can either plead memory loss, creeping senility, or both.


The strategic success or failure of the surge will be determined after the US troops in Iraq are inevitably drawn down. Iraq isn't stable by a long shot. That's not to say that the so-called surge has accomplished anything. But the Iraqis are running out of time to get their act together. The majority of Americans already think the Iraq war hasn't been worth the cost in money or lives. Without the bully pulpit support for the war in Iraq will likely decline precipitously, especially with a recession a distinct possibility.

JM Hanes

Clarice, Rick:

Over at Classical Values I suggested we add "shaheen" to the political lexicon:

Shaheen outlines an imaginary Republican sliming of Obama and the Greenwaldians shout, "How dare you? You racist bastards!" You've been shaheened.

Patrick Tyson

The idiotic Drudge has already pulled his link to the idiotic TNR's old, old, old news on the idiotic Congressman from Texas.


HEH--JMH. But Shaheen got caught. Maybe there's another name we can come up with when your opponent hopes you'll slime her other opponent and you don't oblige her.What about ,"ladies first"?

JM Hanes

You've been shrewed?

Other Tom

Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the Dems are vulnerable on national security this time around. My great fear is that there is now a majority of the electorate who would be happy to abandon what has been won in Iraq (i.e., the "no permanent bases" policy) regardless of the consequences--or, more accurately, because they don't really believe there will be any consequences. "Let those people go on fighting among themselves--they'll ultimately figure something out." Oil? Hey, no blood for oil, right? Never mind that oil heats our schools, our hospitals, our homeless shelters and abortion clinics--we don't shed blood for stuff like that.

They really feel that the best use of our armed forces is to place them in a posture where no one has to risk being killed. Is this a new-found concern for the welfare of the troops most of them don't know anything about, or is it an aversion to the use of American force? You be the judge.

I believe they truly are committed--quite strongly committed--to defeat, except they don't call it that, because they don't even recognize it as that.

JM Hanes


"....because they don't even recognize it as that."

You have just stated the very heart of the problem.

Kevin Delaney

It is so sad that the doves have fallen for the logical fallacy that if we were wrong to invade Iraq, we must leave it.

The real question a dovish candidate should ask is "how do we find the best approach from here?"

Iraq will have its schedule election between the US election and the inauguration. Everything is set up for this to be a time for a new beginning. An absolutist statement that we must abandonne the country will lead to an ill end.

Rick Ballard


More Shaheenigans?

I enjoyed the fellow beclowning himself right from the get go at Classical Values. Troofers can be a real riot...


The Copperhead Express is on the Bridge to Nowhere with the throttle welded wide open. IMO - a majority of American voters can't find Delaware on a map, don't worry too much about what they "think" about Iraq 'cause thinking just ain't in it. Unless casualties jump tremendously they won't even "feel" about it.

I believe that our operational intelligence in Iraq has reached the point where even if sheiks try and break their lease agreements, we'll be able to handle the outcome. And I don't really think that the sheiks will break the agreements. What's the upside?

Other Tom

"That's not to say that the so-called surge has accomplished anything." I'll assume that another "not" was intended to be inserted after "accomplished."

Even so, that post evidently appeared while I was typing my last post, but it certainly makes my point. An earlier generation of Americans was willing to bear several multiples of the human cost of four years of this war just to secure the island of Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and the beachhead at Normandy. (One thousand Marines were killed in 72 hours at Tarawa.) Today, much of America goes ashen at the prospect of 4,000 dead in more than four years of war. (If their concern were really about the human cost, I suppose they must have been absolutely grief-stricken back in the period 1983-1995, when the US armed forces averaged 1,200 peacetime dead annually through accidents. They just kept that grief to themselves, I suppose.)

If the war against Islamic jihadism is to be won, it will have to be won by America as it is constituted today. I hope I can be forgiven a certain pessimism. Is it "inevitable" that the US can't have a substantial garrison in Iraq for the next half century, just as we have done for the past half century in Germany and Japan? If so, it is not because we lack the ability, it is because we lack the will. That's simply who we are, and ultimately we elect the people who will do as we wish.


"the Dems may be vulnerable on national security yet again."

Let's see, what were the goals of the surge again?


legislation on de-Ba’athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament.

Not so much, but I'll give them a pass on that last one since we are now arming militias.

Certainly the security situation has greatly improved for both US service members and Iraqis.

But to claim a plan is working when practically none of the benchmarks the president decided to use to judge success have been met is a bit odd.

Doesn't matter anyway. It's over come March. And then we'll come up with a reason to give it just another six months.


The "pivot" you mention will occur whenever the Democrats realize that they've exploited our nation's social divisions to the limit.

Once they've milked that cow dry, they'll wheel out the "Uniter" clapboard.

My only contribution to this discussion is: the party may see the need to pivot before the convention chooses a candidate, perhaps in a Southern state like SC.

Especially if my man Fred pops-off a prodding You Tube skit on the subject.



The death toll on Iwo Jima, to secure an air base to save the lives of pilots, would be considered a total disaster by today's standards. Hell, it was considered a disaster by the standards of that day, but they willingly paid it to win the bigger war.


Fear not, Other Tom. Before I posted (above) I looked up the beginning of Mark and you had it right. I'll admit I thought it might be clamans, but of course it wasn't "a voice crying out" but rather "the voice of one crying out." To my mind there are few better ways to make oneself look foolish than dropping phrases in learned languages that turn out to be ungrammatical.

I agree with your assessment on the war.

JMH, how about this. I don't think there's any real "dirt" on Obama, at least not dirt that would count in a Democratic primary. Think back, and Bush got elected after some dirt was slung at him along similar lines: drug and alcohol abuse. That's the worst I've heard of the standard dirt that could be slung at Obama.

On the other hand, the dirt against Obama that could really stick and really hurt would simply be the truth: he's a far left Alinsky trained activist who cannot be trusted at the levers of power. If I were a Republican strategist I would welcome the chance to get that message across because there seems to be no lack of evidence and no lack of time to make the point.

This is "dirt" that neither Hillary nor Edwards can sling at Obama--in the primaries Dems have to appeal to the left wing base. To attack him on this basis would be risky in the extreme. Nor does the silence from the Republican side is, to me, not at all unexpected. With Obama's record they can afford to launch a principled attack on his politics and still have time left to get more aggressive.


If so, it is not because we lack the ability, it is because we lack the will. That's simply who we are

No it's who some of us want to think we are.

The left and other nice kumbayahoos want to pretend that the US is a big friendly fluffy bunny that no enemy would be mean enough to attack or if attacked would respond disproportionately. That is exactly the image which lured Bin Laden into attacking us in the first place.

The left does not see (or want to see) the utility of appearing exactly as we are. Attack us where it hurts and all hell breaks loose (for a while anyway). Like the badger, whose distinctive markings and surly demeanor warn rather than camouflage, our image should protect prospective enemies from self destruction by misjudgment of the US public's appetite for vengeance when enraged. Instead the left mistakes the public response to 911 as the public being duped by W and the warmongering neocons. That is dangerous wishful thinking on their part and the resulting body count of innocent Americans and foolish enemies is the price others pay for their self serving blindness.


"Hillary is not comatose, but instead at a crossroads."

Thats the only place to bury them.


Nor will their souls find peace.


"Maybe there's another name we can come up with when your opponent hopes you'll slime her other opponent and you don't oblige her.What about ,"ladies first"?"

Please,this is Hillary.


Here we go....


Coming back from the gym tonite I heard on the radio that in Michigan where Hillary is the only democrat on the ballot there is a movement to vote for "uncommitted".

Other Tom

"Let's see, what were the goals of the surge again?


"legislation on de-Ba’athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament."

The goal of the surge was not to do those things, but to make the doing of them possible. The goal of the surge was to kill Al Qaeda in Iraq, and to render it unable to prosecute its goals. It has largely done so.

The doing of those things is now indeed possible, and the Iraqis have set about doing them. It would take a genuine imperialist to view as a failure on our part the fact that the natives have not jumped in accordance with our timetable.

Someone try to convince me that the author of that post does not wish fervently for American defeat in, and withdrawal from, Iraq. Hint: you've got a tough row to hoe.


The dow was off over two hundred points today. Gold up big time.
Once again the market--looking down the Obama road squinted and did not like what it saw.


Despite greater lethality and greater rates of fire,casualties have been decreasing in Western warfare.Accuracy and new rules of engagement have seen a great reduction from the mass carnage of WWI and WWII.What has been achieved in Iraq is nothing less than miraculous,if it were not for groups like al Qaeda,the Iranians etc the only current casualties would be accidental.
But do not fear, the Democrats have a new weapon,it gives the target a latte,an organic doughnut and sits then down for a counseling session.

Soylent Red

If so, it is not because we lack the ability, it is because we lack the will.

This is what has me nervous about an Obama nomination. Not only does he represent willful ignorance on Iraq, he represents a wishful return to 10SEP01. He looks good, talks purdy, and promises a painless future free of angry Arabs pre-empting our regularly scheduled programming.

And, I'm sad to say, there are a lot of not-so-leftist John and Jane Q. Publics who are likely to bite. Many find resonance in the neo-isolationist rhetoric going around, despite the evidence against it or the nutjobs espousing it.

Obama's candidacy is a symptom of the possibility that the constant doomsaying from the left has finally worn people down. People want to hear soothing words and be told everything will go back to beer and skittles once we get out of Bush's War.


The Surge is NOT Working

Keynote Address: The Heritage Foundation
Hon. Mark Kimmitt
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs

"If I had to put a number to it, maybe it's three in 10, maybe it's 50-50, if we play our cards right....To recognize that this will be the next phase, that this will be done in 2008 rather than 2007, is a bit of a disappointment as the new way forward envisioned that progress in politics and reconciliation would occur in parallel with progress in security. To see such significant progress in security with only the foundations of progress in reconciliation is a bit disheartening, not to mention sobering."

JM Hanes


"On the other hand, the dirt against Obama that could really stick and really hurt would simply be the truth: he's a far left Alinsky trained activist who cannot be trusted at the levers of power."

I don't think far-left-activist means what you think it means anymore. I'd assume that most Obama supporters wouldn't know Alinsky from the guy next door, or care. If you handed out a list of his organizing maxims, the bulk of them would look like traditional grass roots methodology at this point. Obama is not going to flinch at being called a liberal the way his confreres always, inexplicably, seem to do either. He'll just nimbly turn it to advantage.

I don't think you go up against Obama pitting other Senators against him on his politics, (which have been straight mainline Dem establishment since he got to Washington, i.e. safe and wholly unremarkable). Rather than pol vs pol (why am I suddenly envisioning Mad Magazine's Spy vs Spy?), I think you need folks like Romney or Giuliani who can draw an entirely different kind of contrast and make the experience argument that was so absurd coming from Hillary.


Lanny Davis made these points on Obama about a month ago.


Hillary and Obama are neck and neck with 8% of the precincts reporting. How the heck can they be reporting if the polls haven't closed? Did everyone vote already?


If The Surge is not working as sure as hell the The Retreat will be a disaster.I realise that elements of the left are defeatists and have an almost gimpish desire to be dominated,defeat is not all that it is cracked up to be.


The polls have now closed. Some closed earlier than others which is why they got tallied.


Uh, oh. The Hildabeast isn't dead yet. Too close to call on exit polling, via Fox. Though Obama has a 39 to 34 percent lead.


"The goal of the surge was to kill Al Qaeda in Iraq, and to render it unable to prosecute its goals.

The goals of the Democrat political leaders and the American left haven't been the same as the rest of America since the early days of the Vietnam War at least. While some of us were fighting the VietCong and North Vietnamese in Vietnam, John Kerry is meeting with the enemy and telling the enemy that they can win if they just keep attacking us.
Fast forward to this Iraq War, and the Democrats start off with Sen Rockefeller flying to Syria to make sure that they have the word that the Americans are coming. It gets worse from there, to the point where
Al-Qaeda gets messages of encouragement on an almost daily basis from Rep Murtha, Pelosi, Sen Reid, Sen Durbin etc. etc. It gets the point where Sen Lieberman has to leave the Democrats and run as an Independent because the Democrats will not even allow a person who supports the US Military to run for election.


Hillary Shakes Up Team Several Clinton aides have been turned into frogs and newts.


According to Fox, no blowout for Obama. Based on Exit polls, only a five percent difference. Edwards takes a real bad third.

Maybe my prediction after the Iowa caucuses that that state was the practical end of the Clinton era may have been somewhat premature.

But the notion that adding Paul Begala and the Viper to her campaign can save her is, I believe, wishful thinking.


The success of the surge, the defeat of al-Qaeda, and the increase in stability has had the (not surprising) effect of removing Iraq from the list of top concerns of Americans.

So, paradoxically the Republicans lose an issue that they are having some success managing.

Too late. No national security benefit.

Although my guess is that the polling that showed an advantage for Democrats (!) on the question of which party was better at defending the country will decrease.

Doesn't help if no one's thinking about it.


McCain projected winner per Fox. 99.65% certainty.


2/3 of the Republicans are in support of the War in Iraq.

Definitely a plus for McCain, who among the Repubs is seen as the "pro-surge" candidate.


It looks like the Democrat turnout was almost double that of the Repubs, at least in the 12% of the precincts reporting.


Hillary is winning in NH. 12% in.


There is a new "poll watching" thread.


Thanks, Jane.


Yay! McCain!

Other Tom

Funny, I clinked on the link above that serves as a headline, "The Surge Is Not Working," and here's the lead sentence of the page to which I was linked:

"Location: The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium

"The Bush Administration’s 'Plan B' for Iraq, announced in January 2007 and fully operational in June, has produced remarkable improvements in the security situation."

But again: will anyone try to persuade me that the poster is not actively hoping for a US failure? (I note that he has not accepted my constructive invitation simply to deny that he is.)


OT,the poster is d emo,sferris,pete,his modus operandi is to spread gloom and defeatism.It's a San Francisco thing.

Cecil Turner

But again: will anyone try to persuade me that the poster is not actively hoping for a US failure?

Of course they are. And here's the bad news for the Dems: it's still ten months before the election, and the media is already starting to discover good news coming from Iraq. McCain--who bet his candidacy on the surge--is surging. The bad news for the country: that also helps Clinton.

Several Clinton aides have been turned into frogs and newts.

She's a witch! A witch! (It got better.) I told you guys we needed to keep an extra sharpened stake handy . . . but noooooo.

[It's not our fault, they pulled a mind scramble on us. They opened their eyes and talked.]

[You'd better get yourself a garlic T-shirt, buddy, or it's your funeral.]


but noooooo.

bow down to the great and almighty Cecil...we're not worthy!


Great site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 50 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP and Congressional Leaders!!


First of all, you really mean re-Baathification, the partial restoration of the fascist criminal networks that enriched
a small subset of the tribes (like the Abu Nasir and the Dulaimi) while stealing the
water, oil, power, & food from the increa-singly Shia and Kurdish majority. Which occasioned the re-emergence of the PKK and
the Da'awa militant arm. The oil sharing law, proceeds from many of the same
premises. The amnesty law deals with many of those who adopted Wahhabi or Salafi manners to attack who they considered infidels and heretics; Kurds & Shias and of course the Americans. In the future, the members of the Ambar "Awda" Rising, will probably hold some degree of regional authority; but they've giving up on holding power at the central government level. I would say not a few of the most recent exiles and/ returnees either acquiesced or actively bankrolled the insurgency; which provoked a sharp reaction from the Jaish al Mahdi (who one embedded NY Times
photographer called brave; and whose findings the notorious Lancet study, took at face value) and the SCIRI Badr units. They rapidly found out, what the Palestinians have yet to truly grasp yet; when the 'Arab Street' pledges support, hold on to your wallet because it's worth less than nothing.


Hil is declared winner in New Hampshire

The comments to this entry are closed.