I'm still waiting for an apology, bhoomes

I heard you ask for the evening effect of multiple polls relative to the recent jump in one poll on Countdown. (please pardon that I also posted this in another place as I am new here)

I have exactly what you are looking for. Nailed it right on the head. I have been compiling the various national non-partisan polls since 2000 and posting them on my web site. I have a graph of this at http://www.democratsforum.com that you can look at. Just click the "Bush Poll" button at the top of the page. The graphic is 1/3 the way down the resulting page. I have a link there to give a larger version as the smaller one is hard to read on some monitors.

Please feel free to use this (that applies to everyone). No fee, but I would appreciate a mention of the web cite source.

I do see though where you were confused by "attack," I was referring to where we might be overwhelmed by an attack, not implementing our own offensive ops.

PME is done at Air University at Maxwell AFB in Alabama, btw...

I'd also tell you about the AEF process for deploying forces in the Air Force, but I can tell you it doesn't work like its supposed to.

Would you like to know the details of the regional unified commands (CENTCOM, NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, PACOM) or the functional unified commands (TRANSCOM, JFCOM, SOCOM, STRATCOM), or would you really like me to get into the weeds and discuss the role fo Goldwater Nichols and the reorganization of command structure to fight in a joint structure? I can pull out lots of info from my PME if you like.

The Air Force Academy is near Petersen AFB (NORTHCOM HQ among other things), Shriever AFB (Space), and the Cheyenne Mountain Command Center (NORAD), located just to the North of Colorado Springs, CO (The terrazo sits at 7,258 ft above sea level in case you are curious, or maybe reciting Schofield's quote will convince you?). CAP also stands for Combat Air patrol (a defensive fighter posture), just as AOC can refer to an Air Officer Commanding at the Air Force Academy or an Air Operations Center in active duty. My career field I choose not to discuss here nor are the details of my career relevant to you

What neither Chris nor others acknowledge is that: 1) the recent Post/ABC News poll he cites had the highest number of conservatives and evangelical Christians in its sample ever; and 2) the recent Gallup poll had roughly the same number of Republicans in its sample as it did Democrats, something not matched on any recent Gallup poll over the last year or by any other pollster since 2004. Both polls are suspect and likely outliers, but the media will never report that.

MikeB: You sound reasonably rational in your first part of your posting but then you go off the deep end with unbelievable hostility and hate. You sound like you want to severly punish anyone who does not accept your worldview. This may be a radical thought to you, but people can disagree without being criminals or evil. Get a grip mate and chill a little bit.

bhoomes - I am just fine, thank you. Happily married, three children (two in the military), okay job, and a rock solid belief that the mindless sheep known as NASCAR fans and Soccer Moms will eventually retract and polarize from you nitwits. Then, I and like minded people are going to use whatever means legally available to us to make you and your kind PAY for the damage you have done to this country. At the very least, you and the right wing mob are guilty of assessory to murder. I think your crowd are also guilty of treason. So, wave your Chinese made flag around, and beat your chest with protestation of patriotism, we KNOW you and your sort are traitors, rats who have been busily selling this country out for years.

Your funny MikeB, you are the biggest fruitcake I seen on this blog. My guess is you still live at home with Mama and she still makes your bed in the morning. Closest you have been to the military is watching it on TV. Even the Marine Corp wouldn't let a nutball like you in.

We lost the war the day Bush decided to forsake the real battle in Afghanistan and turned his sights onto Iraq. We had unfinished business in Afghanistan, which done right, could have set the tone for a smart, sincere & successful terror war.

On the eve of our invasion of Afghanistan, the non-Taliban Afghani people were unanimous in one request: that we not forsake them as they perceived us to have done following the Soviet withdrawal. That sentiment gave us license to move a huge presence into that country and keep that force there indefinitely. They didn't want us to abandon them.

Making Afghanistan the focus of our war would have put the bulk of our military strategically at the bridge between East and Middle East, on Russia's doorstep and close to Europe. This is a strategist's dream spot. We could have used the country of Afghanistan as a large mega-base for as long as we wanted. The result would have been the complete eradication of the Taliban and Al Kaida there (a process which would have battle-hardened our fighting people in a far more friendly and stable country than Iraq) as well eradicating as the opium growers-Did you know that 87% of the world's opium for heroin still comes from Afghanistan? What do you think the proceeds from that drug business is financing? Look at what region the London terror plot came from. Feel safer?

Money would have come from the numerous military bases we could have put in Afghanistan. That money would have trickled down and been a shot in the arm to their fledgling economy. This would have eliminated Afghanistan's reliance on opium, made them very welcoming of our presence, and newfound prosperity among Afghanis could have been a beacon to the world of our intentions, morality, success, and power. The long range result of such a plan, had we a President with the wisdom and restraint to pursue it, would be a massive, well trained and equipped army situated at the crossroads of the world. In light of this, any "Clinton Military" blameisms fall flat. Recruiting for Afghanistan in the wake of 911 was through the roof. Hell, we had heroes like Tillman walking away from his multimillion dollar contract to join the fight. We would have had the advantage of America having the respect and leverage of the global community behind our next venture and the army to carry it out right.

Had we followed that plan, we could have taken Iraq, not with B.S. storys of WMD's, drones, BioLabs, and nuclear evidence-all of which has been cast into serious doubt or wholly debunked. We could have come honestly to the UN and given the real reasons that we all know of why Saddam needed removed from power. It would have taken at least two or more years to have properly built up the invasion force and work and diplomacy to gather world support for an invasion of Iraq, but the end result would have not been an embarrassing quagmire that will haunt and tarnish us into the foreseeable future.

The same truthful approach we could have taken toward the world community should have also been applied toward Americans like me and you. That honesty, along with a clear distinction between the terror war & the Iraq war would have resulted in the die-hard support of myself and the rest of the truth-based community. Imagine Left and Right both united without controversy behind the president. It could have been.

If we had a president with the insight to see what a strategic gift Afghanistan truly was and who would have taken the obvious step of conducting a massive buildup there in preparation for the coming Iraq invasion, we could have taken Iraq with far more than the forces we had or even the forces wise voices like Chinseki called for, but far, far more. Enough to render Iran and Syria irrelevant, muzzled and cornered. We could have went in with enough to have allowed William Wallace to double back and get the Fedayeen (a major nucleus of what would become the insurgency) when he requested to do so. We would have had troops to spare to prevent looting, force order from the get-go and crush the insurgency before it had a chance to crystallize.

We would have gone to a war we were prepared for, not with a Rumsfeldian "army you have, not the one you wish you had". That remark is ridiculous in the face of the fact that WE chose the timing of the war and even then we had the resources to provide Chinseki's 500,000. That remark alone should be grounds for Rumsfeld's immediate dismissal.

A young wolf once said to his father "Let's run down there and get one of those sheep". To which the wise, patient father replied "No son, let's walk down and get them all."

When I think about what could have been; how and why we blew our generation's historic call to greatness, it just plain disgusts me.

Why have a primary? In my opinion, it is provide the voters with the strongest candidate to represent the party. So in the case of Murkowski in Alaska, the Republicans decided Sarah Palin was the best candidate to run for governor.
The Democrats decide who will represent them as well.

Only Chuck Todd and political hacks are raising a fuss about incumbents losing a primary. But do they complain about Democrats like Maria Cantwell who hired her challenger and pays him $6000 a month instead of facing defeat in the primary? The other anti-war candidates dropped off their challenge against Cantwell too. Any media complaining?

Voters are concerned about terrorist attacks and which party defends us and protects us the best? So that issue favors Republicans.

Chris Shays is worried but he lives in a state with more anti-war people as the Democrats become the party of McGovern and Adlai Stevenson. Shays should be standing up for our nation and our president instead of badmouthing his own party. Chaffee might get booted off the ballot as well.

Who do these people represent? The party, the voters, or some fat cat? And the rich fat Democrats funnelling money, like George Soros and others just makes the Democrats into hypocrites for taking the BIG MONEY and then complaining about BIG MONEY in politics.

State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka is a Republican who won the primary in Illinois.

Sandwich Repairman, bhoomes - It is a never ending source of amazement for people like me, who actually KNOW the CIA and NSA and our view of them vs. right wingnuts views of them. Nw, you don't have the slightest idea of what these organizatons are about, and likely have ever had contact with them. Well, I have. AND they are SCARY! These organizations and the people they attract are the extra legal sort of whack jobs that resemble nothing so much as Hitler's Gestopo or Al-Sadr's private army. Bush and other true evil men are able to use them to circumvent our laws and our constitutional rights. In the history of the CIA, they overthrew the democraticlly electedf government of Iran (replacing their president with the Shah and ;leading us to the mess we are experiencving today), they overthrew the entire country of Kurdistan and sold the Kurdish people out to the Turk's and the Iranian's. The CIA went to far as to HELP the Turkish government use poison gas to murder at least 200,000 Kurd's.... The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in SOuth America of S. Allende. They, then, set up a military dictatorship that murdered thousands of people in cold blood.

NSA has databases on *everything* done by ordinary Amercian citizens. They know your purchases, where you go to chruch, who you vote for, your medical records, your credit and banking history, the taxes you pay, your employment history, even your legal history. Every but of this is stored in private data bases like those maintained by Matrix. (now, you have to wonder why on earth NSA wants all of this data. The original budget item was for a national identity card, but no one talks about that any more.)

In the end, the CIA and NSA are blood thirsty thugs and criminals who are, I am pretty sure, bent on overthrowing our democratic form of government. At the least, based on their past actions, both organizations no only deserve to be dismantled, but the leadership of them deserves to be tried as international war criminals.

Mkae no mistake about it, Bush and Cheney and ROve are well connected with the CIA and NSA *BECAUSE* they think the same and are the same. All are guilty of murder, first degree murder, international human rifghts violations, international war crimes, and a host of other criminal activities. Anyone and everyone who supports Bush is as assessory to his criminal actions in precisely the same sense that someone hiding a murders or providing a murderer money and weapons and other support is an assessory to murder. Under federal and most state laws, such persons can themselves be charged with first degree murder. I really do perceive both of you as assessories to the crimes being committed by Geroge Bush and the Bush White House.

And bhoomes, if you don't think I have a military background, think again! I also have training as a sniper and have functioned as an instructor in hand to hand combat. I a word, I and the current crop of liberals are your worst nightmare. WE will not be pushed around and we are angry.

Michael I suspect you are a total fraud without ever spending a day in the military. We executes plans not attack. CAP stands for Civil Air Patrol in the AF. Please tell what career field you were in and also tell me a little about the base where the AF Academy is and what bases are nearby and what are there missions. Tell me about the MAJCOMS and how we go to war. Quickly without researching it on the web.

Are you guys talking about personal income taxes, or all federal taxes?

"The plain fact is the top 5% wage earners pay 90% of the taxes in this country"

Huh? The top 5% do not pay 90% of the taxes, they pay about 50%.

You talk about intelligence, didnt Bush read a Presidential Daily Breifing in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden plans to attack America"? And didnt he ignore that warning? So what good is the intelligence if Bush and Cheney only hear what they want to hear?

We need the CIA and NSA; they just need to be reigned in to serve their intended purposes and not grow into the kind of secret police force described above. They also could stand to do a better job of what they're supposed to, at least the CIA for sure. Both are Truman-era creations; they just can get perverted for the wrong purposes at the hands of Mayberry Machiavellis like Bush & Co. Just like we need the FBI but it was way out of control under J. Edgar Hoover. To coin a phrase, mend it, don't end it!

No, it's awfully hard to detect sarcasm from serious argument when the serious arguments themselves are so ridiculous as to be confused with stories in The Onion.

ATTENTION EVERYONE: I actually posted the last one attributed to bhoomes. It was a mistake and I apologize.

bhoomes - sorry, I was in a hurry and put your name in the Name box instead of the body of the post.

Hmmm. Bhoomes ignores me again......

bhoomes - "...notify the Secret Service..." Oh really? For what? For pointing out that Bush supporters are treasonous SOB's that have sold this country out and that treason is a crime that warrants the death penalty? Or, perhaps, that you and Bush and other right wing whack jobs are criminally incompetent? Or, perhaps it is the fact that the CIA and NSA are corrupt, negligent secret police forces that ought to be, and I certainy hope WILL BE, dismantled? Or, perhaps that the entire war on terror, EVERYTHING, done by this administration is simple posturing for the cameras and for dumb slobs like you and the dimwits you associate with and those that think like you? That conservatives are cowards and cads and outright crooks, fanatics, goons, terrorists, not any different than the Nazi SS and about as deserving as former SS members of imprisonment? If it were in my power, I would see to it that Bush and Cheney were impeached and convicted, removed from office, and made to serve the rest of their natural lives in prison. Further, if it could established - and I BELIEVE IT COULD BE - that they were aware of the futility of thier Iaqi policy and had sent our soldiers to die and be maimed in Iraq and elsewhere for purely politcial and campaign purposes or that they used the Dept of Homeland Security as a terror weapon merelty to win elections, then I would charge them with first degree murder and treaon and do everything within my power to see that he was convicted of that. George Bush (and you! bhoomes) are criminals and ought to be punished, deserve to be punished, and God willing, someday WILL be punished!

Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it? My point was that it was some time before official Libyan involvement in the Pan Am bombing was determined. Secondly, my point was that the war against terror is more about law enforcment and intelligence than the military because we will not have too many Afghanistans where the government is harboring terrorists to that extent.

You should also examine the difference between deliberate and crisis action planning. OPLANS and CONPLANS are seldom the plans actually put to use, except for places where an overwhelming attack may come with little notice (speculate for a sec where that might be). Deliberate planning is done primarily for budgetary purposes to assess troop levels, requirements, and logistical support. When a decision is made to attack, crisis action planning goes into effect, which may or may not be based on the deliberate planning process. The plans on the books often go years without review unless it's considered a priority. Afghanistan was low on the list until 1999-2000 when it rose up to the top. The planning process that began around around the time of the USS Cole was CAP, not Deliberate Planning.

USAF, Air Force Academy grad. Plenty of experience with these issues since you brought it up. But that hardly matters here, apparently

USAF, Air Force Academy grad. Plenty of experience with these issues since you brought it up. But that hardly matters here, apparently

In retrospect, we should have taken the Taliban out in 1996. But the current administration has abandoned Afghanistan and its promises to that nation, letting bin Laden run free and the Taliban regroup and gain strength again. Afghanistan was the right war; that's why we have/had a truly international coalition there. Iraq has been a very costly distraction from the fight against terrorism which has put us in more danger than we would've been without attacking it. Was Saddam a horrible dictator? Sure. And there are lots of other horrible dictators around the world who abuse, torture, and kill their own people just as he did who America doesn't think twice about. I suggest Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

'blame the 2000 Cole bombing on Clinton he was afterall the President and he knew Bin Laden was behind by the second day'

So by that logic, I take it I can blame bush for 9/11? Be cause he was prsident, wasn't he? and he knew bin Ladin was bnehind it, and here it is 5 years later. And what has he done? Start a war with someone who had nothing to do with it. And where is bin Ladin now?

Why, i n Pakistan, clearly a hotbed of terrorists, to which we are contributing lots of taxpayer dollars so they can build more nuclear weapons which they will eventually use against us.

'By your reasoning we should have never taken out the taliban because it made us left safe' Umm, wrong agian. The Taliban was not 'taken out' and n fact is stronger now than ever.

I don't know why I bother. Clearly self-declared conservatives are incapable of thought, of learning. All they can accomplish is the parroting of simple concepts.

Bhoomes,

First i dont care about Pat B. or is sister or any other GOP blowhard. I am not a liberal, i am neither Republican or Democratic. I am sure it is easy for you to paint someone with a real view as being liberal. You can prop W up all you want but he has no clue on how to handle terrorism. Just like you have no clue who is a liberal and who is not. Do you remember Somalia? When all the GOP stood up and wanted our troops out after they dragged our soldiers throug the streets? Where was this line "if you arent with us you are for the terrorists" then. Because of the lack of backbone of the GOP from Reagan on we are not safe as a country. And this current fake Texan is much worse on his best day that Clinton on his worst day. So get your facts straight.

bhoomes argues that since the USS Cole bombing happened while Clinton was president, it was his fault.

Ok. By that logic, since 9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch, it's Bush's fault.

"Looks like the liberal mainstream media is trying to play a little CYA. After all the stories about the country turning against Bush and the republicans how will they be able to explain the republicans holding on the both the house and senate. They cannot, which is why you may see a few stories like the one on USA Today in case they worse fears happen and the republicans do quite well this fall. That the democrats are weak on crime and terrorism is not news to anybody.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 24, 2006 07:13 AM"

Hey bhoomes: The election isn't until November. And there's a strong chance the Democrats will win control of one or both houses of Congress. Come back and say that on November 8.

Gosh, KZ, I've been so overwhelmed with BushCo's attention to North Korea and Iran these last 5 years. I guess that's why we invaded Iraq.

Drindl, a billion is not a million million. A billion (10 to the 9th power) is a thousand (10 to the 3rd power) million (10 to the 6th power). A million million, or 10 to the 12th power, would be a trillion.

We don't really need to raise taxes at all just to make ourselves safer, Colin. Excluding Defense and Homeland Security, federal spending has FALLEN in recent years. The Pentagon's budget has grown at least 50% since Bush took office--after substantial increases in the Clinton years. Is any amount of money ever too much for Republicans to throw at DOD? The Pentagon and DHS can and should be slashed, and spending our money wisely rather than on sweetheart no-bid contracts would make us a lot safer.

Now, if you actually want to go back to balanced budgets, and start REDUCING our $8-9 trillion debt, then we will have to repeal the Bush tax cuts. But that would be too fiscally responsible for today's Republican Party, which believes the answer to every fiscal and economic problem is more tax cuts.

The chief complaint about NCLB is not that Bush doesn't spend enough, but that he broke his promise. And if you think this complaint is exclusively Democratic, I have some state legislatures and school districts who'd like to talk with you. I thought the Republicans were the great crusaders against unfunded mandates. So why did they create such a huge one?

If Democrats are responsible for so much pork barrel spending, why has the number and total amount of earmarks exploded under 12 years of Republican rule in Congress?? What Democrat championed Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere? You're using recycled 1980's talking points here, and it's just hilarious. Republicans control both houses of Congress; the pork barrel spending is their doing, not Democrats.

Just curious, what service did you belong to Michael? and no, the boy scouts don't count. There are always OPLANS made up dealing with any/and all contigencies(Including war with Iran)but you have to dust them off, and move your assets into your Area of Operation. Clinton to my knowldge did not do this, he did what he always did and kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with the mess.

>>>If there is evidence that it occurred. Yes, that some paranoid partisans have suspicions. No.

Right, but logically, how do we accumulate evidence unless we have an investigation?

Do you support a criminal investigation of the use of terror alerts for political purposes?

(Something that you have deemed correctly is a CRIME.)

Re bhoomes's comment on the Cole bombing.

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for the facts (if you care about such pesky things)-- Clinton announced almost immediately after the Cole bombing that he suspected the attack was the work of al Qaeda and he intended to take military action. The CIA was less sure that al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing and urged Clinton to hold off on retaliating while they conducted an investigation. By the time that U.S. intelligence agencies completed their after action report on the Cole bombing(in February 2001), G.W. Bush was the president, and he publicly declined at that time to do anything to hold the Cole bombers accountable, claiming that the matter was "too stale" to justify a military response. Bush also apparently expressed concern privately that Clinton had "an obsession" with bin Laden and that going after al Qaeda would only elevate bin Laden's stature in the Middle East.

What do you propose he do about it, some cruise missile strikes? Oh wait, he did that, and Republicans chided him for wasting money fighting a phony enemy in an effort to distract the country from his sex scandal (Just imagine what they would have done had he launched similar strikes on, say, 30 October 2000). Good call on that one. Bush siad nothing during the transition to press for action, and he did nothing once he came into office, barely even mentioning terrorism until 9-11 despite Berger's warning to Condi Rice in Jan 2001 that "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

A full scale military invasion would have taken several months to plan and coordinate, pushing back the decision to the Bush presidency, which did nothign because, as the 9-11 commission reproted, they didn't want to embolden the terrorists. If you really are the military veteran you clame to be, you'd know how long such an operation like that takes. We were attacked on 9-11, it still took a full month to launch the operation, despite the plans being on the drawing board since the Cole bombing.

Re bhoomes's comment on the Cole bombing.

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for the facts (if you care about such pesky things)-- Clinton announced almost immediately after the Cole bombing that he suspected the attack was the work of al Qaeda and he intended to take military action. The CIA was less sure that al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing and urged Clinton to hold off on retaliating while they conducted an investigation. By the time that U.S. intelligence agencies completed their after action report on the Cole bombing(in February 2001), G.W. Bush was the president, and he publicly declined at that time to do anything to hold the Cole bombers accountable, claiming that the matter was "too stale" to justify a military response. Bush also apparently expressed concern privately that Clinton had "an obsession" with bin Laden and that going after al Qaeda would only eleveate bin Laden's stature in the Middle East.

MikeB you are obviously a total nut job so I will not respond to you(but may notify the Secret Service)Michael: Yes we can blame the 2000 Cole bombing on Clinton, he was afterall the President and he knew Bin Laden was behind by the second day, so wht didn't he take action. By your reasoning we should have never taken out the taliban because it made us left safe. I sure you believe this, but the majority of americans don't buy it.

kingofzouk, bhoomes - there is PLENTY of evidence that the Bush White House uses terrorist alters for purely political reasons. There is a very clear pattern that traces close elections, confirmation votes, and Bush's poll numbers to alerts. I would go so far as to claim that Bush and certainly Rove are guilty of treason for this very reason and ought to imprisoned.

As fpor taxing the rich, given the poblems that the rich have visited upon this country and given the undeniable fact that MOST wealthy Republican businessmen engage in illegal activities (like selling biolival and nuclear technologies to places like Iran), AND given the harm done to employees by investors, I would not only tax these cockroaches, I would seek them out and have them hung...all very leal, of course, but hung or otherwise executed for being the very sort of sociopaths they have proven themselves to be. You can laught about this, but I assure you, the day is coming when the majority of the Amercian people will agree with this and, what's more, WILL DO IT.

Lebanon was a clear act of war too, but Reagan withdrew. Libya was a clear act of war, but Bush I opted against it. Clinton followed suit with the Embassies, and Dubya followed suit with the USS Cole (don't blame that one on Clinton, it occurred in October of 2000, putting our response time in the January time frame, yet Bush didn't even address the issue either in the debates, the transition, or once he took office). The reason is because taking out these states will do nothing to solve the problem because the problem is not statist in nature. Just because he's changing strategies doesn't mean he's on the right track. Acts of terrorism are up worldwide since 9-11 despite our efforts, the power of our enemies is growing as a result of our action, and yes we are less secure today than we were five years ago (the same type of plot we saw in London was also thwarted in the 1990s, without the post-911 measures).

Don't think Bush plays too much with politics and terrorism? Maybe you should ask the British who have had their terror cases from the recent plot significantly weakened because the US is talking too much in the name of trying to pump up Bush's numbers.

The fact is terrorism is a problem for the entire world that can never be solved by military intervention. The military will work at the tactical and operational level to thwart individual attacks, but can do nothing to solve the underlying problem while overrelying on the military will make the underlying problem worse. This is Bush's biggest failure and why the Republicans are so weak on national security. They act without thinking trying to show strength when they are really just making a bigger mess. Our values of democracy are under siege at home and we face a greater threat from the world abroad, and that's a fact. We need a broad strategy showing true leadership in the world, not just this us vs them grade school level nonsense.

If there is evidence that it occurred. Yes, that some paranoid partisans have suspicions. No.

Ok, so on one hand you think it is politically advantageous to use terror as a political motivator, and yet you think that a skilled propagandist like Karl Rove is NOT using terror and terror alerts to the GOP's advantage? Is it ME who is paranoid, or are you ignoring the admittedly largely circumstantial evidence that by-and-large the alerts have corresponded with domestic political events?

Let me ask another way...

If there is suspicion of the GOP using terror alerts as a political motivator (which is as you suggest CRIMINAL), should there should be a non-partisan/independent investigation of the accused perpetrators?

Or should there be no investigation?

FB: It would be political malpractice if you didn't run on your strong suit. That the republicans through their policies are the best party to handle terrorism is a legtimate issue. Changing terror alerts to help your party would be criminal and we are not doing that, you just might be a little paranoid about that.

bhoomes, since you're still here, what do YOU think about the nexus of politics and the war on terror? Do you think Rove, et al, are using terror for political purposes, or no, and that it's just a coincidence that terror alerts have corresponded almost exactly with bad news for the GOP or good news for the Dems?

Well when you are running as an independent it makes a lot of sense to reach out to everybody not just your base. Might be a good idea for Lamont too woo some republicans. Its how you when elections. Drindl just curious, what state do you reside in and do have any pets? ie dogs or cats?

New topic. How about a piece on how Joe Leiberman is campaigning today in Groton with republicans? Traitor.

Drindl: your 12:27pm Post is the first valid thing you have said for the past two days. No one can quibble with the plain simple thing know as [[The Truth]].

I haven't been here for several days and what on earth 'truth' are you talking about? There are several alternate realites in republican land.

JimD you really lost me when you said should we go to war with GB because of the shoe bomber. Most of your postings are well thought out even if I disagree with them but that comment was just plain stupid. I shouldn't need to explain this but I am aware some in this audience need a little help, There is a huge difference between a government sponsoring terrorism as in the case of 103 and a few individuals who are citizens of a particular country but of course do not act with government approval. That is unless you think the Tony Blair government was behind the shoe bomber and he was their paid agent.

KOZ: It's not about not spending enough. It's about spending our tax money more efficiently. NCLB has not worked and these recent medicare fiascos are not working either.

I'm bored already. It's been 24 hours. How about a new topic?

'Drindl's problem is a problem a lot of lefties share, they can laugh at others but they can NEVER LAUGH AT THEMSELVES.'

But I'm not nearly as amusing or charmingly childlike and naive as you and zouk.

Drindl: your 12:27pm Post is the first valid thing you have said for the past two days. No one can quibble with the plain simple thing know as [[The Truth]]. bhoomes: I'm beginning to think you just might be one of the hard-headed repugs I hear so much about, anyway both of you have given an old man something to laugh about. Thanks.

Hey KOZ and bhoomes, thanks proving my point. You both SPIN away from the main topic (Terrorism and the politicization of terrorism) b/c you have NOTHING to show for progress against terrorism in the post 9/11 world except fabrications and lies.

You are CLOWNS.

Fact of the matter is that this "terror war" is a battle of Rovian propaganda vs. the truth about people who really do want to harm us. But these partisans have NO INTEREST in debating the facts on the ground b/c they all point to the United State LOSING the War on Terror, LOSING in Iraq, and FAILING to keep us safe (even in light of natural disasters and our national response).

These folks are CLOWNS. Keep ON TOPIC folks. Dont let a couple of idiots ruin an IMPORTANT and substantive convo. Thanks.

'you are viewed as a tempestuous fool' Oh, am I? And what do you suppose your are viewed as, zouk? Laughable is what. A source of mirth. Uninformed parrotry. Zombie purveyor of the standard dittohead talking points.

' How about the idea of travelling over to the nest and eliminating the bad guys on their turf?'

The 'bad guys' -- anyone who used this baby talk in clearly incapable of understanding anything more complex than Dick and Jane.

Sorry, I have given up trying to reason with people like you who lack the facility.

It is difficult to laugh about thousands of serviceman, servicewomen, and civilians getting maimed and killed for no credible reason.

Not very substantial arguments there - as usual.
What is the chief complaint abouit NCLB and Medicare reform leveled by Dems - they didn't spend enough. what happens every time Bush submits a budget. the Dems pile on more spending. Yet it is the Rs who are spending crazy? what did Pelosi promise - see above. More spending, bigger government, higher taxes. the evidence and facts seem to mean nothing to you zealots. retreating from an aggresive enemy is not a way to gain respect, advance your cause or deliver security. Try to come up with a retort based in fact, reality or at least a historical notion.

Drindl's problem is a problem a lot of lefties share, they can laugh at others but they can NEVER LAUGH AT THEMSELVES.

bhoomes

I am a registered Republican as a matter of fact and I voted for Bush I. It took quite some time to establish what role the Libyan government had in the Pan Am bombing - you do need proof before making war. I am not opposed to military action against countries but I think an invasion would have been a mistake. Reagan bombed the Libyans in retaliation for other acts and we should have when the Pan Am facts were established. What makes you think overturning the Libyan regime would have turned out better than overturning the Iraqi regime? As for why nations go to war, Europe went to war in 1914 over the assasination of the Austrian heir to throne engineered by elements of the Serbian intelligence service - without the knowledge and approval of the responsible Serbian government. That also turned out to be a fiasco. Just because nations have gone to war for less than compelling reasons, does not mean we should continue to do so. We could have easily knocked out the regime but what do we do next - look at the Iraq mess.

By the way - should we have bombed Britain if the shoe bomber or the last group of terrorists had been successful? What do you think thwarted those attempts - law enforcement and intelligence.

I see you do not have much to say about the rest of my critique. Is George Will a Democrat?

I meant to say:

#2 KOZ, bhoomes both failed to prove their case that Media Matters is a purveyor of LIES and is NOT a factually accurate response mechanism to the Right Wing media's outright lies.

Yeah thats it. You know what I meant ;)

...And they cloak these one-liners in patriotism and religion, just like all dictatorships.

#1 Karl Rove is behind the politicization of TERROR no matter how much apologists KOZ, bhoomes and formerdem want to spin away from the topic. This is a STRATEGY to use terror as a political weapon. Nothing more. The American people of all political stripes are sick of hearing false alarms, and anyone suggesting otherwise is simply a partisan hack. Rove will find out just how non-sustainable his terror strategy is this November.

#2 KOZ, bhoomes both failed to prove their case that Media Matters is a purveyor of truth and serve as a factually accurate response mechanism to the Right Wing media's outright lies.

The fact of the matter is that right wing partisans (whether in elected office or posting on this board) are LIARS in every sense of the word. What amazes me is how long it has taken the American public to come to this conclusion, and also how complicit the MSM has been in "covering" for the outrageous lies propagated continually by these pseudo-political clowns.

They are CLOWNS people. Dont forget that. Everything about them is a charade.

KOZ: Dems will spend more and defend less? Unbelieveable! One thing that the republicans have been really good at over the recent years is coming up with these one-liners: "cut and run," "tax and spend," etc., etc., ad nauseum. They repeat it over and over and expect brain dead Americans to swallow it and repeat it and they do.

So your solution is to tax the rich. sounds familiar. this attitude is a big part of the problem in this country. I am all for everything that gets me something when others are paying for it. Bigger government, higher taxes.....How many terrorists who blow up airplanes have been smuggled in through the ports? how many have trickled through the borders? In fact, they all come here legally on students visas and such. Your pricey solution will not contribute to solving the existing problem. and a side effect will be a giant tax on all shipping and international commerce. not to mention that a purely defensive approach allows the enemy to decide when and where they will attack us. do you really think we can harden every target and just sit around content that the explosions won't hit anything major. How about the idea of travelling over to the nest and eliminating the bad guys on their turf? What are the advantages of this approach vs yours? Remember all those strategic bombers we built in the 70s and 80s? We didn't need them or ever plan on using them, but it kept the Soviets building defensive measures instead of offensive capabilites. you non-military types do not seem to understand strategy very well. that is why we have a professional military to do the job. why is this the only aspect of government you don't like or trust?

Please tell me the objective measure you will use to determine how safe we are?

\\Drindl, try to come up with one intelligent thing a week to post to this site. your constant embitterments add nothing but bile to this debate and you are viewed as a tempestuous fool. you offer nothing but insults and chanting gleaned from spending all your time in some sort of anti-Bush cocoon. you talk alot about psychosis - apparently from personal experience by all the evidence you present here. Just go back and review your brilliant contributions today. Can you find anything of value there????\\Back to ignoring moonbats.\\

We do not want to raise taxes for pork barrel spending just so the dems can say they are not total wussies when it comes to national defense. Spend tax dollars on offense not defense. The plain fact is the top 5% wage earners pay 90% of the taxes in this country but I guess if you are a socialist you will not be happy until they pay 100%, while you pay nothing.

'The regime would have been quickly taken out and other terrorist nations would have taken note' -- yeah, just like iraq. Because we invaded Iraq, the whole middle east is peaceful now.

Total and complete disconnection from reality is a quality of psychosis.

Sure are a lot of the undead out there... digging up and rehashing the same old lies, tired lies, damned lies, big lies, republican talking points. No matter how many times you rebut the argument, how many times you kill them, they get up and keep spewing the same lies, lies, lies. Zombies.

There haven't been any attacks in the last five years, therefore Bush = good. WOW, that's FANTASTIC logic. Seriously, what are your smoking? We're all glad that we haven't been hit since 9-11, but saying that's b/c of an administration that has refused to adopt the 9-11 commission's recommendations, secure our ports or our borders, or competently prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply ludicrous.

KOZ - will actually implimenting the 9-11 commission's recommendations and securing ports and borders cost more than we're spending now? Yep. But I actually think that the safety of the country is worth that price. My suggestion is implimenting a new tax - on the rich - which is earmarked SPECIFICALLY for improving our homeland security. I'm sure you will still be against such a tax - even as you try to drape yourself in the flag - but I actually think most americans would be perfectly willing to incur such a tax if it actually meant they'd be safer.

Having spent 20 years in the military, I heard there were a few democrats in the service but I never had the pleasure to serve with any. But JimD does confirm there were a few of them sprinkled about. When Libya blew up a USA Airliner, that was as clear as an act of war you will ever get. JimD being a military man you understand nations have gone to war for a lot less. If Bush I or Clinton had treated it like an act of war instead of sometype of law enforcement problem. The regime would have been quickly taken out and other terrorist nations would have taken note. Appeasement is always a foolish and dangerous policy. I wish more people would read history instead watching TV.

This issue is terrorism and whether the Republicans have done a good job at protecting our nation or not. The fact we have not had an attack in 5 years escapes the Democrats. They POO POO each and every report from the Bush Administraion that the Justice Department captured a cell of hoodlums who might be conspiring to blow up something. That can't be real, it is all made up, stuff like that. So the only way the Democrats would believe the Republicans and the Bush Adm. have done a good job is to drag them into the complicated world of intellegence and see the evidence. But then, the Democrats could not keep their mouths shut about ongoing investigations and would blab to the media, letting the ENEMY know they were being watched and that evidence was being collected to arrest them.

Also, did you know one of the 1944 campaign buttons for FDR was" REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR". Yes, the Democrats used a horrible tragedy to win support for FDR. So I think we need a "REMEMBER SEPT 11" BUTTON for the November 2006 campaign.

"FormerDem"
**Do you want the NSA to be able to operate as it has?
No, I want this outlaw agency dismantled and it's present and former employees and directors investigated for criminal wrong doing. They are incompetent a best. I would do the same for the CIA. The FBI, given proper leadership and oversight, would be far better suited for anything these agencies do. And, P.S., I KNOW people in intelligence and have never met anyone from the CIA that wasn't what I would consider to be clinically insane. Of the FBI Special agent I have know, I can think of two would ought to have been fired, the other 20 or so were professionals and hionest, decent men and women.

**Do you want the federal government to engage in lawful and effective monitoring of international financial transactions by suspected terrorists? Only with a properly obtained warrant AND, if it is found that the investigated person is not engaged in activities for which the warrant was obtained, I want any records destroyed.

Any police activites beyond these guidelines is a threat to this country and any agency or individual engaged in any such activity is, in my opinion, a threat to this country, no less than Osama Bin Laudin is a threat, and both ought to be dealth with in exactly the same manner. You do not deal with a threat by mismantling our democracy or our system of laws.

My criticism is more general in nature. the Dems will spend more and defend us less. do you deny this allegation? so far thay have been long on criticism and very short on helpful suggestions or plausible ideas. What exactly can we expect from a Dem H of Rep? I would hate to go back to the days of Jimmah Carter where we retreat from all world engagements, ruin our economy and appear weak to the entire world. That is believed to be the beginning of all this mess. When dealing with killers, nice guys finish dead.

Colin--I can tell you the administration's 'solution' to Iran -- start a war. Just like they did in Iraq. It's the only 'solution' they have to anything. Funnel more taxpayer dollars into private defense contractors, who also happen to be be campaign contributors. Course this will be a much bigger war that will possibly lead to WW3, but when did that ever stop a republican from doing something?

Why talk to zouk? He only repeats slogans and tag lines --he's a parrot, a dittoherad, a tool, a useful idiot--he can't think for himself.

KOZ -- Just to be clear, are you criticizing Democrats for not addressing how they would address EVERY SINGLE ISSUE in a document they rolled out before labor day? That's a very "interesting" perspective. Of course the release you cite doesn't cover everything. And OF COURSE it doesn't provide a ton of details. It wasn't supposed to do either of those things. Rather, it provides a general overview of how Democrats will approach the issues of the day - which are constantly changing - when they do retake control of Congress in NOvember.

By why of comparison, can you explain to me what the Bush administration's "solution" is to either N. Korea or Iran? Or, for that matter, Iraq? B/c if they have one - and I don't need minute details, just something general - I have yet to hear what it is. Oh, and just to preempt your answer on Iraq, "stay the course" is a slogan not a plan. So you'll have to come up with something better.

'It is the cut-and-run Dems who would strip us of our ability to attack our enemies and limit the chance to defend ourselves'

I see zouk has drunk all his kooliaid this morning, like the obedient little boy he is.

Seems like a lot of spin going on here. Debate any issue and you can find foolish remarks mde by everyone. Just take a look at the press conference a couple days ago. Can anybody with a straight face say that GW was not spinning? How many more times does the mission in Iraq change. Oh! I almost forgot the mission was Accomplished. Seems this happened some time ago if I'm not mistaken.

CC???

"Those results were mirrored in other polls conducted over the past month."

I think only one post (jimb) even came close to touching on this point.

How does a net +12% in USA Today poll mirror net -2% and -3% in Time and Post polls? Also, none of the polls other than USA Today show a percentage above 50% of Americans polled agreeing. I call that an anomoly and while the overall results may be better than they were, a majority of people still think things are not going well in Iraq, the war on terror or trust Republican leadership in many of these areas.

You need to be more precise in your language and more specific in your examples of what is being "mirrored" in other polls. The trends? Bush's numbers in contrast to his overall approval and handling of the economy?

I agree that the war on terror is his best card in a very weak hand and Rove knows it is their only shot at holding on to control of either house of congress.

PS- If the Dems do not take control of at least the US House, trust me, it is a win for Republicans.

I forgot to mention that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan because we diverted troops and resources for the Iraq fiasco. They should also tie a crash program to develop alternative energy sources as a national security issue.

bhoomes - who said that the US is responsible for terrorists? I know of no responsible person who does. Read George Will's column that I referred to in my last post. He denounces that line of attack much more eloquently than I can. Not even you could characterize George Will as part of the liberal media conspiracy. It is a fact that the US armed Afghan rebels in the 80's and that many of them became jihadists. I do not think that we should not have done so. It was smart to do it because the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict played a crucial role in the downfall of the USSR. That was a very good thing. But, Osama did become a jihadist as a direct result of that. Does that mean the US caused terrorism? NO, it was an unintended consequence of a rational action in our national interest at the time.

It is also a fact that the US supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's. That was understandable on several levels. First, this was just after the Iranian hostage crisis and we were justifiably concerned about the ayatollah dominated government there. Iraq under Sadaam was a secular regime. I am not sure that it was smart to play sides in that conflict but it was understandable.

As for Libya - they have renounced WMDs. Our strategy of containment over several administrations - Republican and Democrat -worked. Invading Libya in the 80's, during the Cold War, would have been a mistake. Libya is doing exactly what we want Iran and North Korea to do. this is one of the few foreign policy successes the Bushies can point to.

In this case,I have to agree with Drindl. there is a bigger threat to our security than Iran. It is the cut-and-run Dems who would strip us of our ability to attack our enemies and limit the chance to defend ourselves. they are indeed very dangerous to our future.

'[Lieberman] is polite, smart and works hard for his constituents' .. Yeah he sure does. For his republican lobbyist constitutents.

Just in case anyone wondered, the fall republican campaign just rolled out yesterday, with the release of a congressional report on 'threats' we face from Iran. From now until election day, Iran is the biggest threat to the world. Stop thinking about the mess in Iraq, stop worrying about gas prices and no medical insurance, the deficit or republican incompetence. Just start being very, very afraid of Iran.

Repeat after me -- 'weapons of mass destruction' 'weapons of mass destruction' 'weapons of mass destruction'...you are getting sleepy, very sleepy... 'weapons of mass destruction' 'weapons of mass destruction'...

"Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and other House Democrats recently released a six-pronged "New Direction for America" agenda for change: Real security and immediate phased pullout in Iraq; higher minimum wage; more affordable college; energy independence and lower gas prices; affordable health care; and something called "Retirement Security and Dignity," which calls for shoring up private pensions.

Notice anything missing? Not one word about North Korea. Not one word about Iran. And virtually every one of the six Democrat initiatives requires greater federal government intrusion, higher taxes and contempt for the private sector to compete and innovate. In short, "fiscal irresponsibility."

Americans, despite our uneasiness with the war in Iraq, nevertheless realize the consequences -- in the war against Islamofascism -- of an abrupt abandonment. And the next time you hear a Democrat attack Republicans for "reckless spending," ask the following question: "Aside from defense, where should government cut back?"

The silence will be deafening."

From http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2006/08/24/do_we_really_want_democrats_in_charge

What say you about these facts?

No, I graduated from Kindergarten in June. I am heading for the 1st grade. Any moderate democrat like JimD would have no problem voting for Lieberman because he has constitently had high ratings from ADA and other liberal organizations. He is polite, smart and works hard for his constituents. Lamont is just a one issue candidate, he is heading for defeat this fall.

"Colin anything less than the dems picking up at least the Senate or the House will be painted as a huge defeat for the dems and will probably cost some dems their jobs."

By whom, that liberal mainstream media? Picking up, say, 12 house seats and four senate seats would be a huge victory for the Dems even if they don't take either house. Only a conservative who drank several gallons of the cool-aid could see it any other way (but then again, we all know who we're dealing with here, don't we).

bhoomes -- Are you actually a student in kindergarten, or is that just your intellectual level?

I hear Lieberman is campaigning with republicans today at Groton sub base. How can any Democrat vote for this traitor? What a complete sellout, what a tool.

Drindl you would know about institutionalized people, when did they let you out?

'It is insane that anyone regards this administration as competent in the war on terror.' Indeed.

And let's not forget that cheney and wolfowitz swore that this war would be free -- it would 'pay for itself' with oil revenue. Such a quaint notion now, 4 billion dollars later. Remember a billion is a MILLION MILLION taxpayer dollars. Wasted, blown away, flushed down the toilet. Or rather, flushed into the pockets of war profiteers.

And wow, that last bush press conference was a doozy. How much more incoherent can he get? It's really, really frightening... I've seen institutionalized people with a better grip.

American First are you a Pat Buchanon follower? Must be will your moniker. Lets set the record straight, Nobody is responsible for terrorism except the terrorists. I know that is a hard concept for you liberals to understand when you think America is responsible for all of ills of the world. I would agree our track record is not perfect and we should had taken out the Libyan regime once it became obvious they were behind Pan Am 103. But it did not become apparent until late in the Bush Administration when he had his hands full with the 1st Iraq war. (you know, the one you guys voted against, proving your a bunch of panzies.) Osama grew up on The Clinton watch, and no amount of spinning can change that fact. GWB has been busy cleaning up the mess you liberals left the country with. And NOW, YOU HAVE THE GALL TO SAY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC: TRUST US WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. Yeah right, nobody is stupid enough to buy that lemon.

I think the Dems have to seize the terrorism and Iraq issues by the horns and present coherent plans. I am a moderate, independent voter who tends to be fiscally conservative, socially fairly liberal, in favor of a strong defense and not reflexively opposed to US military action anywhere, anytime. I am a small businessman and a retired military officer. I have voted for Republicans as well as Democrats for president, senator and congress over the years. So, I am hardly a wild eyed liberal pacifist that bhoomes and others like to caricature in here. But I am appalled by the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration. I listened to the president's press conference the other day and I cannot think of a better anti-GOP ad than running some of his lame responses (or non-responses) to the questioning.

Firstly I would challenge his main assertion: that the war on terror is primarily a military action. Bush accuses the Democrats of having a pre-9/11 mindset for saying that the GWOT is primarily a law enforcement and intelligence action, similar to the struggles against drug lords and mafioso. Well, that is exactly what it is. George Will's August 15 column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html) makes the point that F-16's are not good weapons against terrorists in the UK and Germany. Read the whole column, it is a devastating conservative critique of this administration and their ridiculous claim that Iraq is central to the war on terror. Additionally, I would advocate expansion of our Special Forces capabilities - as some Democrats already are. The most probable military actions against terrorists would involve Spec Ops raids. I would also discuss how our Iraq misadventure has drastically narrowed our options for dealing with the true threat in the area - Iran. Military experts are almost unanimous in saying we have no good military options in Iran. The only advocates of military action against Iran seem to be the "chicken hawk" neo-con crowd. It is believed that Iranian nuclear facilities are dispersed and some are in deep underground bunkers that would be extremely difficult to take out with air strikes. Also, Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz - through which a huge percentage of Middle East oil flows. Add to that the impact of Iran suddenly not exporting oil and this would have a cataclysmic impact on world energy supplies and could send US, Japan and Europe into severe recession.

Secondly, I would adopt Senator Joe Biden's plan for extricating ourselves from the mess in Iraq. His plan was presented a few months ago in the Post and he has an Op-Ed today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html) discussing it. Basically, Biden calls for dividing Iraq into Kurd, Shiite and Sunni regions with considerable autonomy. The central government would manage foreign relations and control distribution of oil revenue. Baghdad would be a federal city with a peacekeeping force. This plan deals with the reality of the sectarian conflict there and calls for keeping a quick reaction US force on hand to deal with terrorists for the immediate future. However, it also envisions a phased drawdown to that reaction force level over the next 18 months or so. This is the only rational plan I have seen for dealing with the mess. I do not believe we can leave Iraq to dissolve into a failed state controlled by warring groups of armed militias. The chaos that would result from that could easily spark a regional war as Iran, Turkey, Syria and others seek to protect their interests and aggrandize themselves.

Another line of attack would go after the Republicans' perceived strengths as the cold eyed realists who are not afraid to use force in defense of US interests. I would hammer on the utter lack of contingency planning in the whole Iraq fiasco. I would mercilessly attack the neo-con delusional mind set that anticipated the Iraqis strewing flowers in our paths, adopting liberal democracy and causing a democratic revolution throughout the Middle East. I would run ads with some of their more fanciful statements ("The insurgency is in its last throes" etc) I would run ads featuring General Shineski's (Army Chief of Staff in 2003) testimony to Congress saying we would need several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq post invasion. Then I would show Rummy's response to this - which was basically to ridicule it. I would excoriate them for ignoring sound military advice. I would excoriate them for not bringing in experts on Iraqi culture and society to advise on post-invasion plans. I would also make much of the equipment shortfalls our troops had to deal in body armor and armored HUMVEES for example.

The Democrats have prominent people with the credentials to make this case - Senator Biden. Congressman Murtha, Wesley Clark. They can showcase candidates like retired Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania with solid military credentials who are extremely critical of the Iraq invasion. I firmly believe that the Democrats can make the war on terror the main issue and succeed thanks to the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration and its enablers in Congress. I didn't even go into the whole Homeland Security mess - port security, cargo screening, and the Katrina mess- since so many others have done so in here already. I hope that the Democrats make this case. It is insane that anyone regards this administration as competent in the war on terror.

'You don't get brownie points for comong close in politics. Ask Al Gore, he will tell ya. Coming close only got him a spot on Saturday Night Live for being a doofus.'

--except he won the most votes and the popular election, something simple folks don't seem to understand. Have someone explain the arcane process of the electoral college to you, pinhead.

Glad to see so many knowledgeable Dems on board to refute the dizzy delusions of braindead righties. What I don't understand is why there should have been any bounce for repugs on the British plot, since THE BRITISH were the ones who discovered it and apparently our pathetic Honeland Insecurity team had no idea.

And then the Brits only grudgingly let our spies help at the last minute -- and then were furious because bush blew the cover off the investigation too soon, for political reasons, and allowed some of the perps to escape.

Why would further examples of bush making the US less safe through the politicization of policy help repugs?

Well if you look at history the GOP is responsible for the terroism we see today. In November of 1980 the Presidental hopeful Ronald Reagan stated during the campaing "I dont deal with terrorists", While answering a question about our hostages held in Iran. Just 2 months later guess what he did? He dealt with terrorists by arranging to sell Iran weapons for our hostages release. Then the GOP decided to get behind the Afghan rebels lead by Osama Bin Laden. Then they abandoned the rebels. At the same time the Reagan administration decided to take Iraq off the terrorist list. Then in 1988 Pan Am flight 103 was blow up over Scotland. And the Bush admin wants to take Libya off the terroist list now, So who has a better track record???

P.S.: You don't get brownie points for comong close in politics. Ask Al Gore, he will tell ya. Coming close only got him a spot on Saturday Night Live for being a doofus.

Colin it is your liberal friends in the mainstream media that has been playing the expectations game. I mean if you read some of their stories, its a done deal that Nancy Pelosi will be the next Speaker of the House. Colin anything less than the dems picking up at least the Senate or the House will be painted as a huge defeat for the dems and will probably cost some dems their jobs. Why, because of the expectations of most of the bloggers on this site and the mainstream media. You guys wishful thinking is going to really haunt you this November. I will feel your pain though, becasue I'm a nice guy and have empathy for others.

bhoomes - any evidence supporting your continually rosy view of Republicans' chances? Also, will you really take it as a "victory" if Dems pick up 12-14 house seats (falling just short of control) and 5 Senate Seats? B/c that would still amount to a HUGE shift in political power and influence and effectively criple GWB's last two years. I think Dems WILL win one house of Congress, but lets stop the expectations spin game. Making the kind of gains I just mentioned would certainly be a victory for Dems, not Republicans.

At one time, it was the party of fiscal conservatives...

The GOP now represets a "no-bid government."

And since they are giving all those tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires, the "lower classes" pay for that no-bid government.

JEP

Given the piss - poor track record of the GOP - controlled government at foiling plots and arresting real terrorists (as opposed to hapless morons like the Florida bunch), the Republicans should shut up.

This government could not unfoil a terrorist plot if it were handed it, maps, schedules, and all.

Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, all have been successful at arresting terrorists before they strike, thanks to good old intelligence and police work. Combatting terrorism is a job for law enforcement.

Cheney, Bush, Rove, and the rest of the fanatical cretins want us to be afraid of our own shadow. It worked in the past. It is not working any longer. Only paranoid idiots still buy the party line.

In fact, the only people whom we need to be afraid of, are the demented ideologues who are running this country into the ground to satisfy their megalomania and their greed.

Looks like the liberal mainstream media is trying to play a little CYA. After all the stories about the country turning against Bush and the republicans how will they be able to explain the republicans holding on the both the house and senate. They cannot, which is why you may see a few stories like the one on USA Today in case they worse fears happen and the republicans do quite well this fall. That the democrats are weak on crime and terrorism is not news to anybody.

Having taken my nap I see a couple more posts ie: San Rep. The Alaska primary is the classic example of a good party man and a gentleman. The former Senator and present Govenor took his loss like a man. Not so Joe L. The folks in Conn. will, I hope, make the right choice when the time comes. These other things are smoke screens. The 'war' on terror, has been going on for thousands of years, is a distraction, nothing more nothing less. Now look at what is being talked about and you can see what, hopefully, my prior posts were trying to get across. Anyone, it seems, can get this done in so simple a fashion. Simple, Simple, Simple. If there is a better way to explain this I sure would like to know. This is going to be the worst month in Iraq since the war began, surpassing just the past month, July, as to the cost in life lost and wounded of not only of military, but innocent men, women, and children. Get off what hurts you the most.

There is no more important question in public service than that of war and peace. If being obstinately wrong on the most important moral question of our age isn't sufficient to get a politician thrown out of office, I don't know what is.

1968?? I don't see MLK or RFK getting assassinated again. I don't see a bloody Chicago convention. I don't see our cities being destroyed in race riots. I don't see massive campus/youth protest. I don't see a distinct counterculture deliberately challenging mainstream culture. I don't see a third party candidate running on a segregationist platform and getting substantial national support. What I do see is another president lying to the nation about a war we can't win and had no business entering in the first place.

The comparison to 1968 is almost totally without merit. It's a convenient polemic to throw out, but it has no basis in fact. One anti-war candidate's defeat of a pro-war incumbent in a primary--in a month where FOUR incumbent politicians lost their jobs in primaries--hardly signals a parallel to the Vietnam era.

The Republican Party just expelled Gov. Frank Murkowski in Alaska! A couple weeks ago, the Republican Party expelled Rep. Joe Schwartz in Michigan! In 2002, the Republican Party expelled Sen. Bob Smith in New Hampshire! In 2004, the Republican party came very close (51-49) to expelling Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania! Next month, there's a good chance the Republican Party will expell Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island!

Jihadists! Fascists! Why can't they be the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower like they used to be? Clearly there is no room for anyone who doesn't tow the party line in the GOP.

FormerDem....makes me think of this guy who has confessed to killing Jon Bennet...can't think of his name thank goodness. These folks just want attention. They thrive on any response.

does anybody really think that somehow 53 million americans have gotten smarter?

How was this whole thread about some a-hole named "FormerDem" and not some a-hole Karl Rove?

I used to be a Democrat too!

I;d like to add to my prior post to make it clear. When you accuse your opposition of something it is so much simpler to accuse them in a way that is not clear what you are accusing them of. The [[cut and run]], [[stay the course]], etc. have no meaning to folks that know what is going on. Simple.

FormerDem refuses to let up with the "Leiberman was purged" business. His posts are so stuffed with fallacies that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll respond to just one, starting with this: "...and partly because [Democrats are] doing their best to be a small-tent rather than a big tent, ideologically speaking."

How can those upset by the fact that Lieberman was challenged, and ultimately lost his primary, keep on saying that the reason this took place is that there's no tolerance for difference of opinions in the Democratic party? Guys, there's evidence to the contrary. Ben and Bill Nelson, and Herb Kohl, none of whom are anything near perfect-record Democrats, are all cruising to reelection this year. All three have the total support of the liberal wing of the party you're convinced is pushing out non-dogmatists left and right. (No pun intended). The liberal wing is firmly behind Cantwell, another far-from-perfect liberal. Tasini is about to be crushed by Hillary and there aren't many voices of complaint in the pro-Lamont (that is to say mainstream) Democratic corner.

I'd also like FormerDem to say if he's heard of -- or bothered to read about -- Bob Casey, James Webb, or Harold Ford, three future senators none of whom much bolster the idea that there's no room for divergence of opinions among Democrats.

FD goes on: "...but not a single one of you said anything that indicated a willingness to agree to disagree within the party on that particular issue."

It's absurd, first of all, to suggest that a war that overwhelming numbers of Democrats believe to be both unjust and a distraction from the fight against terrorism, be dismissed with a "well-let's-just-agree-to-disagree" shrug. That "we-can-all-be-buddies" intra-Washington attitude makes a joke of national security. Sometimes it's reasonable to expect that war trump politeness.

That said, when it comes to matters of national security, ALL sides should listen to other sides, and I'm not allergic to the idea that each party ought to give some representation to the majority view of the other party. Thus senate Democrats represent a large spectrum of views, ranging from those of Feingold, Akaka, Kerry, to those of Reed, Levin, Clinton, to those of Nelson and Lieberman. (Lieberman did NOT incur the enmity of Democrats because of his Iraq position, and it would be nice if his partisans stopped disingenuously pretending he did; more on that below). Incidentally, do senate Republicans' views cover much alien ground, outside of Hagel?

"No one even volunteered dismay at the treatment of the very liberal, very loyal (except on one issue) Joe Lieberman."

That's because we aren't dismayed, nor ought we to be. First of all, Lieberman was treated with a lot of courtesy throughout the primary. (It was Lamont who weathered traditional attack ads, and whom Lieberman snottily refused to shake hands with at the end of their debate. It was Lamont who thanked Lieberman for his service to Connecticut in his victory speech). Yes, there were some very nasty comments left about him on some liberal blogs, comments that I think Ned Lamont would be the first person to express disgust with. But in general, the outrage at Lieberman's intentionally provocative, poke-Dems-in-the-eye statements and actions, tended to be politely expressed.

The statements and actions I'm referring to go back to his awful anti-Clinton speech during Lewinskygate; they continue through his "no prizes for second place in American politics" line after the '04 election; and on, at last, to the infamous '05 "Shut-up-Dems" senate floor statements and editorials, the ones that finally brought on his primary challenge.

THE GUY WAS CHALLENGED IN A PRIMARY. That is not "dismaying treatment." One of the main rhetorical tricks employed by Lieberman partisans is to make it sound as though he were kicked out not by a whole bunch of voters, but by a small handful of puppetmasters whose sinister machinations brought down an innocent guy. You want to criticize Lamont's campaign? Criticize it, but at least acknowledge that primaries are democratically legitimate events.

Had CT Dems decided they'd had enough of him *simply* because they disliked his positions on the most crucial issues of the day and because, with their votes, he'd already been a very powerful man for nearly two decades, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE. But they did not. They voted for Lamont because Lieberman again and again undermined Democrats at crucial moments, often when they were trying to present a unified front with which to fight the Republicans. In order to increase his own prestige by appearing on political chat shows more often, he cut the legs out from under the party one time too many. People got sick not just of his pro-Bush positions, but of his acting as an apologist for Bush and perenially making Harry Reid's job that much more difficult.

I'd like to say one more thing on the Lieberman subject. Today's crucial political issues are not the same as the crucial issues of the '90's. On those, JL may have been good and liberal. Certainly, he never would have lost the primary merely because he was a little waffly on affirmative action. But affirmative action and abortion and even stem-cell research and gay marriage simply are not the most pressing worries we have now. Infinitely more important are the power grabs that the Bush administration has made, its refusal to conduct war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and the fact that it's made America more vulnerable to terrorist threats than ever by ignoring actual terrorists and taking out Saddam instead. The heroes of the liberal blogosphere -- Dean, Feingold, Gore, Byrd, Kerry -- are not necessarily crusaders for socially liberal causes. Those can wait for another day. They're crusaders for the security, and the essential character, of the country, people who want to take these most vital matters out of the reckless hands of the Bush administration and the Republican congress, and bring the country back around to safety and sanity. And it's on these most crucial issues -- today's crucial issues, not yesterday's -- that Lieberman went AWOL.

"Which isn't really surprising, since few of his fellow Democrats in Congress stuck with him either. I recall that Barbara Boxer, of all people, did, though. Very much against the war in Iraq. I disagree with her on so many issues, but she has it right where the party's tolerance of differences on particular issues is concerned."

FormerDem, please look into the accuracy of what you're saying before you say it. A bunch of senators campaigned for Lieberman -- Dodd, Biden, Lautenberg, Salazar. Obama was for him early on. And NO Democratic senator -- not even those now enthusiastically in favor of Lamont, like Kerry and Feingold -- endorsed Lamont over Lieberman while the primary was ongoing.

I take part of that back- the two races a