Powered by TypePad

« Do NOT Mock Obama! | Main | "Yeah, I Don't Do Cowering" »

June 25, 2008

Comments

kim

I've always been amused that 'shall not be infringed' is in the same sentence as 'well-regulated'. Methinks the Founders did it on purpose so that we would argue about it rather than shoot each other over it.
========================

kim

And another one bites the bus.
=================

boris

Well regulated in that context does not refer to regulation as in law but regulation as in standardization. The term "regular army" is the key. The militia may not be "regular army" but they can be close enough (well regulated) if allowed to freely obtain military grade arms.

kim

Now I'm sorry I said all those terrible things about Mike Klonsky yesterday; I wouldn't want to wish that kind of disappearance on anyone.

These are his natural supporters Obama is disappearing. Won't he wonder when all of the less committed followers start fading?
==========================

BL

I just burst out laughing over 10:49!

Hey, did you see this?

http://www.houseconservatives.com/blog/machinists-union-refuse-to-endorce-barack-obama/

bad

Wouldn't it be great if they actually stayed under the bus, but you can bank on Obama pulling these jokers back into the bus if he makes it into the white house. Dude has no convictions beyond promoting himself.

kim

Oh, I know, boris. Regulation was code for drill, whose object was to diminish mortality from friendly fire. But you can't argue that that locution hasn't been central to the arguments of the anti-self protection brigades.
====================

narciso

Ah yes, the ghost of Al QuaQua, Iraq's Aberdeen proving grounds, not exactly an arsenal for small arms. In fact, it's arguable why IAEA would be interested in
it at all; unless the warheads had nuclear material (like say the 1.77 tons of yellowcake found at the Al Tuweitha reactor, found in April 2003)Kay was the first to uncover what were seemingly destroyed chemical & biological stocks in 1991; and he kept finding them into 1997.
Ritter pointed out how the Special Rep. Guards who ran the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, were also in charge of the WMD.
the late Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son in law, told sources in Jordan,( Valerie Plame
perhaps)that Saddam had destroyed stocks, that conflicted with what Kay and Butler were actually finding however. The conflict
came over the Palaces, which were the proceeds of the Oil for Food scam, that was
back in 1997; nearly five years before the
next set of inspectors came. Under the new
inspection regime, with drastically reduced
parameters with regards to searches.We sees with Blix's boss, El Baradei, how he would rather the Iranians have the bomb; if his prorogatives were interfered with. I don't think the interwar Allied ControlCommission was so blind.

I've commented on earlier instances, how Shinseki's stints as an infantrymen nearly
forty years earlier; didn't prepare him for
the unconventional, assymetrical warfare as much as Schoomaker's time in the Special Forces (particularly Delta in Iran,Somalia Colombia, et al) would do for his job as Army Chief of Staff. Interestingly, it was
Shinseki's deputy, Jack Keene, who was the
originator of the surge; and he wasn't fired. However, it took a more permissible environment before COIN could really take effect. Speaking of which, it's a bit of a small irony, how the Democrat's go to counter terrorist, Richard Clarke, had negotiated the basing rights for the Dhahran/ King Sultan bases, because he had never cracked a book about the Wahhabi Ilkwan; which Schwartzkopf actually did.
The depth of Clarke's wordview has yet to be really plumbed. His first roman a clef,
Scorpion's Gate, is notably critical of the Sauds, after a Wahhabi coup deposes them; but is not of the Ilkwan savages who rename it Islamiya;(which more likely would be Wahhabiya)and understanding of the Iranian
Quds force. Who does he have absolute contempt for; an Armenian standin for Wolfowitz and the Pentagon; under a thinly
veiled Rumsfeld manque, he has a solid understanding of the real enemy (snark)In his view, AQ is to be understood and respected; much like his rival Scheur. It's those who have a quarrel with it; like the
Bush Administration, who were ultimately right, like the mea culpa by Bergen & Cruikshank unwillingly point out, are the
real villains.

kim

White blue collar workets resent the sort of 'white guilt racism' promoted by Obama. They've worked for years with black people and have thoroughly absorbed King's lesson about skin hue not indicating the content of character.

Obama is completely blind to this distinction. I don't think it is in him to recognize how far the nation is beyond the sort of racism he accuses the 'typical white person' of having.

But just in case he can, sssshhhh.
============================

kim

n, what do you know about Val Plame and Jordan? I still think she might have been complicit in the assassination of Foley, who probably knew a lot about yellowcake and Africa, but my hint came from the cryptic commenter, and I don't mean you.
============================

narciso

By the way, I woudn't lean on Michael Rose's version of events. He was the one
"reporting for duty" (couldn't resist) as
chief of UNPROFOR during Srebenica (That's UN Protection Force)which failed utterly in Bosnia. He has some new book out, like the
aforementioned Mr. Polk's history of guerilla warfare, that paints the Iraqi
'insurgents' as the 'new minuteman'
didn't read, got it off the Booklist blurb
(Hey, I'm not that much of a masochist)

kim

Masochist? I'd have said 'libertine' the way you wallow gloriously in this great mass of intelligence detail.
=============================

Soylent Red

does not refer to regulation as in law but regulation as in standardization

Right boris. It basically tells the Federal government to make sure the militia is equipped to a minimum level and can shoot straight.

IOW, regulating the operation of the current existing, not regulating the existence of.

Sue

Kim,

Do you know yet what the big news was on the climate that was set to be announced today?

GMax

Speaking of Climate I was traveling and away from the computer when Hansen made his most recent outrageous comments. Anyone blast him on his partisan activity that has nothing to do with any role he plays in the government nor his role as a scientist?

sbw

Well-regulated means that those may be called upon to serve in an army learned enough at home about keeping and bearing arms that they understand at the outset in which direction to point the guns.

RichatUF

Sue-

...the 2004 presidential election (or maybe it was the 2006 mid-terms) the NYTs ran a front page story on how the Bush administration was putting Iraq's nuclear weapons design on a blog for any and all to see...

narciso could probably better answer the question, but it was the Harmony Documents that were posted to a DOD website to allow those interested to translate and research them. They have been used for the Iraqi Perspectives Project and Robinson [?] wrote "Both In One Trench". Hayes has written quite a bit on the documents too. And we can thank the NYT, so solicitous of the national security (and DNI Negroponte concerned with what the NYT might do) for making sure those dangerous documents won't see the light of day (a bit like ignoring the Mitrokhin Papers or Verona Papers). Here is a blog post with some links...I'm not finding the Hayes article, but I remember he wrote something at the time.

GMax

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” McCain said.

PeterUK

Supremes reverse DC gun ban. Open season on liberals then?

Ranger

And as a side bonus to the SC ruling today, we get another Obama flip-flop too. Obama said last November that he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional:

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Today his campaign says "The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views..."

It took them 7 months to notice the Trib got it wrong?

Via:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/

Via Hot Air Headlines

RichatUF

kim-

...I still think she might have been complicit in the assassination of Foley, who probably knew a lot about yellowcake and Africa...

This is doubtful. However, he would have had a very good idea about the honeycombed fraud and teror financing regarding the Office of the Iraqi Program and the incurious reportage of the "Reparations" that the Hussein regime paid through various Palestanian (and other, Algeria comes to mind) grps.

kim

Sue, no not yet. The conference is at 3:00 PM today at the Marriott Marquis in NYC. I've tipped Andy Revkin to it, but he has his head in the sand about climate and probably won't go.

I hope I haven't overhyped it. My best guess is that they will talk of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the approximately three decades of mild cooling we have ahead of us. I think they are going to predict an imminent El Nino which will actually cause milder, that is warmer, temperatures for the rest of this year before the big cooldown next year. These five talking are meteorologists, not solar scientists, so they won't talk about the sun, except maybe insofar as it drives the oceanic oscillations. If the quiet sun today is a harbinger of a Grand Minimum. future cooling may be drastic, not moderate.

Hang on folks, we live in interesting time. Altogether now:

We are cooling folks. For how long even kim doesn't know.
===================================

kim

Rich, which would give corrupt State and CIA a good reason to get him out of the way.
=====================

kim

Ah, Rich, I finally got you on something; it's Venona.
================================

PeterUK

"Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

This is Obama's area of expertise,outside flip flop and flim flam.

bad

From Jim Geraghty at NRO:

...

Yesterday I wrote that despite Barack Obama’s claims that he believes in the Second Amendment, is a friend to gun owners, never supported a complete ban on handguns (despite a questionnaire from early in his career stating he did), etc., those claims are hard to balance with his approval of Chicago’s effective ban on handguns. In Obama's entire time in the city, there’s no record of him ever objecting to it.

Obama’s audacity on this issue goes even further.

Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.

During Obama’s tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama’s tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation.

The Violence Policy Center, despite its name, never seems all that concerned with beatings, stabbings, immolations or explosions. No, they’re completely focused on gun violence, and they can effectively be called an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization.

More ammunition (so to speak) for Obama's (ahem) evolution of views.


Rick Ballard

Peter,

I am no conossieur of Supreme Court decisions but Obama seems to sit next to Justice Stevens, upon whom Justice Scalia (writing for the majority) conferred a super dunce cap. You might be interested in reading the decisions - Justice Scalia traces a path through English history and law that the majority of the current population of the UK seems to have forgotten for the moment.

We are one justice away from tyranny here in the States. That should be sufficient reason to vote for McCain.

kim

Gmax: When they came for our rich evil plutocrats, no one said anything. When they came for our ignorant Congressmen, no one objected.

Hansen has violated the Hatch Act bigtime, and trampled all over the First Amendment, but he has immunized himself from repercussions by claiming to have been censored and gagged by the Bush Administration. This is a guy who has given something like 1400 interviews lately.

Frankly, he's nuts; I suspect he's driven to desperation by the imminent collapse of his precious carbon paradigm.

If you want some esoteric entertainment go to climateaudit.org where Steve McIntyre and John Goetz et al are decoding the mass of primitive Fortran that Hansen uses to adjust, and some say illicitly manipulate, the raw temperature data from weather stations around the world. Also over there, a David Holland is closing the trap on some IPCC poobahs who are stonewalling Freedom of Information requests about the review processes for the IPCC AR4 report. In fact, the IPCC's report isn't the consensus of thousands of scientists, it's the manipulated story of a handful of dishonest scientists.
============================

bad

Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.

Obama did say that McCain denied Obama's accomplishments. Perhaps McCain should apologize for ignoring this one specifically.

Soylent Red

Open season on liberals then?

I already have several in my freezer.

They taste just like chicken.

kim

By the way, Rich, have you seen the article entitled 'As the Earth Cools: What Does it Mean for the Energy Industry' by Vinod K. Dar in Right-Side News, lately. It is the finest discussion of the topic from a political and economic geography perspective that I have seen. I found it through icecap.us which is a fine aggregator of climate skeptic news, run by Joe d'Aleo, a well-known meteroologist.
===============================

Soylent Red

We are one justice away from tyranny here in the States.

Let me amend that to "one justice away from immediate tyranny".

We're already two justices long for plain old incremental tyranny.

RichatUF

kim-

...you seen the article...

I linked to it when you pointed it out before, but only skimmed it. I'll give it a second look today, once the coffee and speelchek kick in...

kim

Now, you've got me, Rich. I noted that at the time, and forgot. It is a good one; I've been recommending it everywhere I go.
===============================

PeterUK

"They taste just like chicken."

Be careful,I knew someone who ate one once,didn't come down for a fortnight.

PeterUK

Mr Ballard,
We have very clear rules on firearms here.The police have them and criminals have them,the rest of us try to keep out of the crossfire.
I don't include the military since they are never here nowadays.

Cecil Turner

In fact, it's arguable why IAEA would be interested in it at all . . .

The actual reason to be concerned about the HDX/RDX high explosive is that it's useful in nuclear weapons design (once you get a fissile core, you have to implode it very precisely in order to ensure the big bang . . . hence special switches, high explosive, etc). But that particular brand of HE is hardly a show-stopper (though useful for various physics reasons). The main reason it's monitored is because it provides a good indicator if some particular regime is planning on assembling a nuke anytime soon.

But if lefties bothered researching the subject matter even a bit, (like here f'rinstance), they'd find tidbits like this one:

For a clandestine program the principal problem is acquiring weapon-usable fissile material. Without this, no program is possible. [emphasis added]
Looking at the other material that's on the "nice to have" list (most notably, Kryton switches, for precisely timed ignition of the high explosive). HDX/RDX isn't even listed. The idea that it's a critical proliferation concern is just dumb (but not quite as dumb as the usual claim that it's somehow critical for IED production).

Bottom line is that anyone with enough fissile material can make a nuke. It makes no sense at all to try to contain proliferation by trying to control designs, high explosives, or switches (though monitoring sales of all this stuff definitely makes sense, as an indicator of who's trying to build one). If one wants to make a big deal of Al Qaqaa, it indicates Saddam retained nuke ambitions. The idea that some nefarious group is going to materially shorten their own nuke development time by buying the stuff on the black market is just fanciful nonsense.

Cecil Turner

Right boris. It basically tells the Federal government to make sure the militia is equipped to a minimum level and can shoot straight.

Considering that the usual militia organization at the time required the member to provide his own firearm, that reading makes perfect sense. I'm not really up on 18th century usage, but it seems to me it's the only reading of "well-regulated" that makes sense in that context.

glasater

Rich--This is the link to the WS search page for Hayes.
Do not know if that is any help but he was doing yeoman's work on AQ and Saddam connection.

RichatUF

glasater-

Thanks for the link. Most of his stories on DOCEX were from late 2005 to Aug 2006. The pre-election surprise (saying the docs contained nuclear weapons information) was launched by the NYT on November 2-3 2006 and puffed up as more "culture of corruption". It doesn't appear that he wrote anything directly about that, but it might have been included in a later article.

Cecil Turner

In 2004-2006, instead we went with the "Antibody" theory and sweep and destroy. And the MSM reporting was so lackluster and so uninformed that I didn't even realize we were NOT implementing COIN but the weird antibody theory.

Yeah, I think this is the most interesting aspect for big-picture retrospection. And I hate to throw stones (partly because I'm not a huge proponent of some aspects of the COIN approach . . . though I'm coming around) but Gen Abizaid's tenure was clearly ineffectual. And the one criticism that is rarely made, but I think is fairly legitimate (directed at GWB and Rumsfeld), is that they took too long in replacing him.

It's hard to assess what the effect might've been if this strategy had been implemented at the outset (or even if a modified sweep and destroy approach might've done better, if implemented more effectively and with more energy), but there's little doubt that there was a turnaround, and that Gen Abizaid opposed the measures that produced it. What might've been accomplished earlier is necessarily a guess.

glasater

Rich--Hayes book "The Connection" was published in '04. I was reading all his articles faithfully at WS before and after the books publication. I think he took a hiatus for a time from WS and there would be a gap--but Hayes did write extensively on the treasure trove of material found after the fall of Saddam.
One of his articles at WS did refer to the NYT's "dangerous docs" perfidy and how the documents are being handled in recent times. It's in that link I provided above somewhere:-)

RichatUF

glasater-

I'm looking and sure enough, I'll find other interesting things, a Robison story about a Syrian nuclear facility from Nov 2006 (I think it is the place that Israel bombed in Sept 07), but I'm not finding the bit Hayes wrote about the DNI and NYT getting the DOCEX website killed. My googlefu has failed.

sylvia

"It's hard to assess what the effect might've been if this strategy had been implemented at the outset "

Well a better strategy might have worked earlier, but in a way it's probably the only practical way things worked out as they did. You maybe had to let the turmoil boil over to clear the air, even though that's tragic for the people who lost their lives during those years. Al Qaeda had a chance to show their face, the government had some time to test out their wings, tempers and old scores had a chance to settle down. So I think the surge was just came on top of a perfect storm of changing circumstances in Iraq at the right time.

Still we have to admire Bush and Co for recognizing that and going with the tactic when everyone, including his mentor James Baker, was telling him not to. That definitely came out of left field for me when I heard about the new alternative.

GMax

We are one justice away from tyranny here in the States.

Actually I would opine that we are one justice away from finally crawling out from the oppressive boot of tyranny by the judiciary. Perhaps not on this decision, but I can name two recent others which are surely exhibits A and B for my proffer.

Anyone the result is the same, the absolute most compelling reason to vote McCain come November.

glasater

Rich--This Hayes article does not directly refer to the nuclear "stuff" in the NYT but does bring a person up to date on documents recovered in Iraq after 2003.
Most of the folks who comment on this blog are already aware of this information but reading the article gives some insight and primer into a small portion of Narciso's database. Including knocking his favorite newspaper chain--McClatchy.

From the article...3/24/08

"The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages."

glasater

Here it is:
Questions on DOCEX

Let me know if there is a fee to read.

RichatUF

glasater-

Let me know if there is a fee to read...

No, no fee, but for me a thinking cap and double expresso would be salutary.

glasater

Good about the no fee and I hear you on the expresso front:-)

It's one of the reasons I don't sleep well at night--from the coffee and reading reports such as the ones linked.

RichatUF

glasater-

It did make for some sobering reading looking back at the fear and paranoia that "unnamed intelligence sources" had regarding DOCEX and the lengths they went to to get a democrat congress.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first agenda item in Obamessiah Year I will be a Pike-Church lite to cage up the CIA, to thank them, for all their hard work in ushering in a unity democrat majority (remember America's real enemies are conservatives or "neo-cons"). Put 'em on global fisheries and illegal waste dumping issues when they aren't entangled in trials regarding Bush Administration policies.

glasater

Rich--As a sidebar--During the Clinton administration government seriously made a run to take out the dams on the Columbia River to save the salmon--that's being run up the flagpole again. Dams that provide a bunch of energy.

And another fact that didn't get much press during that time frame is that land East of the Cascade Range were mapped for animal migration from Canada on South with "takings" on the agenda. No more farming on the designated ground.

RichatUF

glasater-

Good grief.

A few years back the environmentalists made some headway in getting some other dams torn down in WA-for the salmon of course, and those "green collar jobs" we hear so much about-so it doesn't surprise me that they would be eager to finish the job. Can never have too much unemployment as long as Mother Earth is happy.

MarkJ

Obama's new campaign song (from "Horse Feathers," Marx Brothers, 1932)

I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn -
"Whatever it is, I'm against it!"
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
"I'm against it!"

Don Meaker

Our soldiers are still in Cuba, 110 years after the Spanish American War. We are still in Germany and Japan 63 years after World War II. We are still in Korea 55 years after the armistice.

Why do we still have these soldiers far from home? Because those of us who learn from history know that it is far cheaper to stay and prevent problems than it is to reenact the Normandy invasion, and the Pusan Perimeter. It was the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam and Democrat treason that made the world safe for the Communist invasion of South Vietnam after US forces had been withdrawn.

And the Democrats want to once again sell out our allies, and support our enemies.

bour3

Are you denying Howard Dean called for more troops in Iraq in 2003 and Rumsfeld and all his fellow Bushbuttlickers ridiculed him?

Yes, Martin, that's exactly what this post about Obama's stated opinions about denying that Dean Howard, brilliant military strategist, called for more troops, and that Rumsfeld and his fellow Bushbuttlickers didn't ridicule him for it. That's it exactly. Because everybody knows when someone writes a post about a presidential candidate's opinions, they're actually suggesting someone else's non-presidential candidate opinions made even earlier. I bow before your power of cognition.

Quit being so quick to hurl your internet-generated unimaginative 100% partisan ad hominems. You give commenting a bad reputation.

Actually, I'm positive now, comments like yours are designed to put readers off the idea of reading comments altogether. There's simply nothing of value to be seen there. See? That's my way of telling you to piss off.

JM Hanes

TM:

Looks like we will actually need to score TWO for David Brooks:

If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

You would think that Obama must be in trouble when even McClatchy starts to question his "true-blue" image, but think again:

Presidential candidates often tack toward the center after securing their party's nominations. But all this tactical repositioning by Obama suggests that he's a more complex, pragmatic and arguably more opportunistic politician than the fresh face of "change we can believe in" that he presented during the primary season.

In New Hampshire, interviews this week with voters suggested that they aren't paying much attention. Even those who've taken notice generally said their enthusiasm for Obama isn't dampened.

To sum up McClatchey's man-in-the-street reaction survey: The King of New Politics is dead, long live the Pragmatic King!

JM Hanes

In other updates, Baseball Crank (via Hot Air) sheds additional light on the vapor in Obama's vapor trail with a link to this Nov. '07 ABC News/AP article, in which Obama explains away the void where his Illinois Senate record should be. Maybe the old boss is the same as the new pragmatic boss after all.

AST

This is a comment on the main post by Tom.

If anyone on the left had read Imperial Grunts by Robert D. Kaplan, they'd have known that the military has known how to defeat insurgencies for a long time. It's the basis of the Green Berets and other special forces.
But it seems to have to be rediscovered in each war. Petraeus was the man who understood it and could put it into effect. It's more than just boots on the ground, that we heard so much about from McCain and disgruntled generals sniping at Rumsfeld. It's about how you use those boots and it's about getting out of the Green Zone and among the people. Of course, it was always going to take some time for the local tribal and political leaders to realize that Al Qaeda and its ilk have never cared about the people and that Americans do. There were a lot of things that look like mistakes in hindsight, but at the time were pretty much the only choice. The first job of a government is to control its own territory and guarantee civil order to its people. The easiest way to do that is Saddam's way, but since that is antithetical to everything American, we had to figure out another approach, all the while ignoring a hostile press and a chorus of opposition willing to throw our own troops under the bus for political advantage. For pulling this all off in the face of a howling gale of criticism, I think George W. Bush deserves to be honored, though he will probably only be so in Iraq.

JM Hanes

Yup, the Paper of Record makes it official: For Obama, a Pragmatist’s Shift Toward the Center.

Californio

Of course the surge is [working, not working, doomed to fail, what I wanted all along]. This is not rocket science - everyone I know thinks the same! That is why the [failure, success] of the surge only serves to augment my argument that we should get out now! It is a [disaster a'la Dunkirk or .. a roaring success - like the culmination of the Marshall Plan]. Therefore we must leave now. Obama [supports/rejects] that position - so that is why I [embrace/reject] it too!

Hey! This is Fun! I always seem to be right!

jr565

Re: the dullard who posted his ad hominems and then skipped town, with the following:

"Are you denying Howard Dean called for more troops in Iraq in 2003 and Rumsfeld and all his fellow Bushbuttlickers ridiculed him"


The dems were suggesting more troops, not because they actually intended to send more troops, but rather as a cudgel to attack Bush with.ie Bush is a failure because he didn't send more troops to begin with. But don't be under any illusions, it wasn't actually a call to send more troops. It was a demagogic attack designed to smear, not a suggestion of policy. Something that the dems are really good at (smearing, rather than trying to fight wars).
You'd think that if Dean were so gung ho he'd be on board for having a surge strategy, yet he, along with nearly every democrat save Lieberman who was thrown under the bus for sticking to his principles, suddenly suggested that not only wasn't the surge going to work, but that Patreus was a liar and a stooge. I thought the dems were all about listening to the generals. Ah yes, that was another one of the smears disguised as policy, that the dems are known for.
Wouldn't expect anything more from the seditionist bastards.


bad

Yup, the Paper of Record makes it official: For Obama, a Pragmatist’s Shift Toward the Center.

Wasn'T that an interesting (disgusting) article? Not that I'm cynical....

Topsecretk9

Well, well, well

lok what the Democrat led congress passed through

The Senate passed a $162 billion war spending plan Thursday, sending to President Bush legislation that will pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the next president takes office.


The package, approved 92-6,

Sorry, 89. It's never been Bush's war. It's super not tonight.

Topsecretk9
The war-funding bill, which passed 92 to 6, includes $162 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last into next year. Updated veterans' education benefits, worth more than $50 billion over 10 years, guarantee a four-year college degree to veterans who have served at least three years of active duty. Mr. Bush is expected to sign the legislation, though he earlier had objections to the domestic spending in the bill, including a 13-week extension in jobless benefits.

The legislation also includes foreign aid funds and emergency relief for flooded Midwestern states.

Despite the delays on the housing and spy-powers bills, there is little doubt both will clear the Senate soon after lawmakers return to work July 7. Both measures have broad, bipartisan support. And Democrats and Republicans agreed on a plan to debate and vote on the bills, with a housing vote expected July 7 and a vote on the rewrite of spy powers as soon as the following day.

Mister Snitch

"How many times are you tools gonna declare victory in this war before we can leave?"

You can leave anytime you like. No one's stopping you...

Topsecretk9

but I'm not finding the bit Hayes wrote about the DNI and NYT getting the DOCEX website killed. My googlefu has failed.

I've always been convinced this was the one moment where the NYT's was for once in favor of forcing the Governments classified doc provisions and there were and are plenty peeps shitting bricks about those documents, including the NYT's.

Topsecretk9

Mister Snitch

Actually, the democrats are stopping him.

Tom A

I hereby dub Him, Barry O'bama-Dinejad. It simultaneously panders to the Irish Catholic, Muslim, and Hyphenated-American voting segments. A Hat Trick!- which of course, panders to the Canadians, eh?...

GMax

Even those who've taken notice generally said their enthusiasm for Obama isn't dampened.

McClachy owns the Ft Worth Star which is so horribly left that when I got a newspaper I got the Dallas Morning News despite living on the FW side of DFW. But they were Hill backers and never really took to Obama. Still what they miss is pretty important.

You are not going to shake Obama core supporters so stating the enthusiasm for Obama is not dampened misses the point.

McCain is going to win this, if he does by wooing the Independents, undecided and Hill Democrats - most of whom never have been "enthusiastic" for Obama so there is nothing to dampen.

To further buttress my arguement, Gallup is detecting a large fall off in enthusiasm for the election now that the dem primary is over. Some of this is the contest is over. Some of this is disgruntled Hill supporters. Some of it is dismayed lefties as they see Obama lurch to the center.

Its very early, and Obama is more of a blank slate than is McCain. I think when his positions become known, he is going to drop. And its a tie according to the oldest polling organization, Gallup, right now.

craig

"For all of the so-called successes you point to, if things are going so well, then why ain't our troops home yet?"

Yeah! And furthermore, if things are going so well in Germany, why ain't our troops home yet?

If things are going so well in Japan, why ain't our troops home yet?

If things are going so well in Korea, why ain't our troops home yet?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame