You stated:

"Well, that clears it up. You're looking forward to World War 3. That's why you keep suggesting courses of action that would cause every country in the world to hate us. (Trying to disrupt the global economy, the murder of millions of civilians, etc.) Because then we get to take on the rest of the world in WW3. Then when we win, everyone will have to bow down to the awesomeness that is our country! USA! USA!"

My response to that is... Why not scream out "Iran! Iran! Iran!" Wipe Israel off the face of the Earth!"

Wipe out Israel and push it into the sea, and the Palestinians will not have a homeland. There ya go... the truth Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO won't share with you... the reason we in the Western world cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Leaving Iraq to figure itself out isn't going to stop those who want to destroy Western civilization from continuing their attempts to do so.

Hillary Clinton will never be president, God willing.

Whoever is tired of the constant Hillary columns and wants more coverage of other presidential candidates, the most effective way to communicate that to Chris is indirectly.

Just leave a final post saying why you're not interested in the Fix any more, then STOP reading and posting on it at all for the next two months, or if you end up forgetting about it, forever.

To the newspaper community, angry comments are just as good as compliments - it proves someone's reading.

The most effective censure is lack of interest.

Have to admit I have been getting bored by the same thing as the rest of you.

Well, that clears it up. You're looking forward to World War 3. That's why you keep suggesting courses of action that would cause every country in the world to hate us. (Trying to disrupt the global economy, the murder of millions of civilians, etc.) Because then we get to take on the rest of the world in WW3. Then when we win, everyone will have to bow down to the awesomeness that is our country! USA! USA!

Let's leave Iraq tonight!

On our departure from the region we level all of the West's investment in the Middle East (aside from Israel). No more oil platforms, no more water desalination plants, all harbors will be mined, and we start an immediate embargo against every Arab state to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait.

That embargo will deny any outside nation from providing any food, assistance/aid, engineering materials, or water to the region.

With this action we can be promised $18.00 a liter fuel for France, Germany, and Japan. China will face stunted growth, and Russia will reveal it's true intentions in regards to the false pretense of Democracy in name only that it has stamped upon itself.

The mahem that follows such an act will reveal the truth in regards to the Arab nations who claim to be our US allies. We will indeed go to a 3rd World War and the chips can fall where they must. Prior to that moment the Arab Nations can be hungry and thirsty... who knows, maybe they will see the errors of their way and seek a lasting resolution with the Western world that allows for peace in our time? Hunger has a way of doing that.

tina, why do you persist? to recap, condi's position requires that she conduct diplomacy on behalf of her "husb." to further recap, u.s. standing in the international community under president husb is at a low ebb - far lower than under clinton, reagan, shrub's dad or jimmy carter. you might have to go back to the 18th century to find a time when the u.s. was as disliked and / or distrusted abroad. and brush up on your constitution - the power to declare war resides exclusively with the congress. bush's "authority" rests on his presuming that iraq posed a clear and present danger which could not wait for american military action. (if you remmeber, we didn't even try diplomacy very hard, and kicked the u.n. inspectors out so we could do the rambo thing.) condi stands beside the president? ("stand by your man / husb"?) then she should be ashamed of herself, and the great institution of stanford university should begin to explore ways to distance itself from her, lest it be associated too closely with incompetence and non-linear logic. she is one of the last people in america we should support for president, even including people i know personally who have never gone near politics. give it a rest already.

chris, put down your clinton press pass and back away slowly. let's talk about someone else. for example, i know nothing about mike gravel (neither good nor bad), and as he is one candidate for the nomination, i think i should. i don't know enough about bill richardson, and i'd like to know more - what i have heard so far is interesting. i would like you to say sth positive about obama - all your mentions of him have a "yes but" tone. and all i have heard recently about edwards was the whole blogger thing. meanwhile, we get this breathless oh wow junk about hillary, most of it not even new - maybe better to say, not even newS. interesting that you have said nothing about the issue of two families monopolizing the white house for twenty years. i suppose i should feel lucky that jeb bush isn't running - then we might be able to tell if you truly find hillary that exciting, to the exclusion of all others. how about rotating the focus from one candidate to another week to week? yeah, i know that hillary is supposedly the front-runner, but remember, only new yorkers have ever voted for her at this point, so how do you know?

Senator Clinton is right, it doesn't matter how we get out of Iraq as long as it is done. I am grateful there are presidential candidates who are against the war. However, I hope that the candidates are also willing to spend some of the resources from the war on real issues such as global poverty. According to the Borgen Project, only .16% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid annually.

I defy anyone to tell me this isn't a civil war:

'BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 19, 2007 (AP)-- Insurgents launched a brazen coordinated attack on a U.S. combat post Monday, sending in a suicide bomber and clashing with American troops. Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded, the military said.

The attack came on a day when a string of car bombings and other attacks claimed more than 40 civilian lives in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Baghdad's majority Shiite neighborhoods were the focus of the attacks Monday in the capital. In the worst strike, a mortar attack killed at least 11 people in the Dora area, a mostly Shiite enclave surrounded by predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Elsewhere in the capital, a suicide bomber donated an explosives-rigged belt on a public bus headed for the Karradah neighborhood, police reported. Five people were killed. Two other bombs both in the southeastern Shiite neighborhood of Zafraniyah killed a total of eight.

In Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of the capital, a car bomb went off among auto repair shops, killing two and wounding two, police said. Mahmoudiya is mostly Shiite with Sunnis living in villages around the community and has long been a flashpoint for sectarian violence.

Outside the capital, a car bomb in Ramadi, about 90 miles west of Baghdad, killed at least nine bystanders congregated at a police checkpoint in the aftermath of a failed suicide attack. In Duluiyah, a Sunni area about 45 miles north of Baghdad, at least four were killed when a bomb-rigged car exploded.'

I defy anyone to tell me this isn't a civil war:

'BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 19, 2007 (AP)-- Insurgents launched a brazen coordinated attack on a U.S. combat post Monday, sending in a suicide bomber and clashing with American troops. Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded, the military said.

The attack came on a day when a string of car bombings and other attacks claimed more than 40 civilian lives in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Baghdad's majority Shiite neighborhoods were the focus of the attacks Monday in the capital. In the worst strike, a mortar attack killed at least 11 people in the Dora area, a mostly Shiite enclave surrounded by predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Elsewhere in the capital, a suicide bomber donated an explosives-rigged belt on a public bus headed for the Karradah neighborhood, police reported. Five people were killed. Two other bombs both in the southeastern Shiite neighborhood of Zafraniyah killed a total of eight.

In Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of the capital, a car bomb went off among auto repair shops, killing two and wounding two, police said. Mahmoudiya is mostly Shiite with Sunnis living in villages around the community and has long been a flashpoint for sectarian violence.

Outside the capital, a car bomb in Ramadi, about 90 miles west of Baghdad, killed at least nine bystanders congregated at a police checkpoint in the aftermath of a failed suicide attack. In Duluiyah, a Sunni area about 45 miles north of Baghdad, at least four were killed when a bomb-rigged car exploded.'

'I agree that some members of the Saudi royal family may support Al Qaeda. But the government as a whole is fighting against them.'

' OBL hates the Saudi royalty and would slaughter them all in a split second if given the opportunity. Too worldly, too cozy with the devils in the West. And they let us use/create bases in Saudi Arabia which was, as Bush conveniently never mentions, the motivation behind 9/11.'

agree with you both... obl's family was [is] an investor in bush senior's company the Carlysle Group -- and the bin ladins were [are] very tight with the bushes.

Bin Ladin IS part of the royal family, though,, that's what I mean. It is a large and complex family, and we unfortunately do not very clearly understand where all of their interests lie. But the madrassas that teach Wahhabism, I believe are state-supported -- I'm just saying, we don't really know what's gong on, do we? it isn't anywhere near as clear cut and black and white as we are led to beleive... there's a great deal of money and power and maneuvering ... and unfortunately, this administration is only interested in oil and nmoney, not national security.

As the Bushies crashed through the china shop of our constitution for the past 6+ years they left so much mayhem and destruction one hardly knows where to start to put things back on course, and conduct the long-neglected oversites needed to bring the robber barons to account.

The above on Alishtari... helping to keep the war-mongering GOP in power, grabbing lucrative gov contracts while funding the terrorists to keep the $$$ rolling in.... is the perfect GOP business model.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Drindl: OBL hates the Saudi royalty and would slaughter them all in a split second if given the opportunity. Too worldly, too cozy with the devils in the West. And they let us use/create bases in Saudi Arabia which was, as Bush conveniently never mentions, the motivation behind 9/11. Why should Bush bother to actually solve a problem?

Anyway, Saudi Arabia has plenty plenty plenty of OBL sympathizers in the State-supported brand of Sunni Wahhabism. Wahhabis (like OBL) see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. You can bet that they teach a dramatically different view of 9/11 in Saudi Arabian schools. Does Bush care? Not in the least.

"The Wash Post just gave me more ability to admire Secretary of State Condi."

Wow. I'd always assumed that Tina admired Condi as much as it was possible to admire someone.

Drindl, the Saudi government is generally allied with the US. They let us station troops in their country, and they have very friendly diplomatic relations with the Bush administration. Do you think Al Qaeda likes that? Terrorists have repeatedly attacked Western embassies, foreign officials, and oil-production facilities in Saudi Arabia. Do you think the Saudi government likes that? And Al Qaeda's goal is a Muslim theocracy. As religious as the Saudi government is, it's still a monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Saudi_Arabia

This Wikipedia article describes the fighting between Islamist militants and the Saudi government. It's possible that all of this fighting was staged as part of a complex ruse. (Meaning that they either faked several hundred deaths and injuries, or let those people die for the ruse.) But why believe that? As I said above, there are solid reasons why Al Qaeda and the Saudi government would be in conflict.

I agree that some members of the Saudi royal family may support Al Qaeda. But the government as a whole is fighting against them.

'trying to drag down our president.' -- sorry no, tina, that would be what the republics did to clinton for 8 years. what a joke you are.

'Our government has a strong President who has the ultimate powers at times of war; with a minor role for Congress' -- you athoritarian cultists are really a riot. Ever read the constitution? i guess not. We have 3 CO-EQUAL branches of government--but bush and cheney have been trying to establish themselves as dictators all along. That's we we will ALWAYS be 'at war' as long as they are in power.

We had troops committed overseas during bill clinton's time too, why is it that we were not 'at war' then? Because Clinton didn't aspire to be a dictator. You and the rest of the dictator worshippers should really move to North Korea. Clearly you'd love it there.

As far as condi is concerned -- loser, loser, loser. miserable failure.

--'This blog points my attention to Friday story about Abdul
Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, a reasonably large contributor to Republican congressional committees (more than $15,000 in the 2002 and 2004 campaign cycles). Alishtari was arrested on Thursday. And on Friday he was charged in federal court with attempting to secretly send $152,000 to Pakistan and Afghanistan to purchase equipment for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.'

http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2007/02/republican-al-qaeda-terrorist-no-joke.html

Tina, Actually Congress has the power to declare war, but they foolishly gave their power away to King George and his neocons in the mistaken idea it would give him leverage to work with the UN to contain Saddam. Instead, he unleashed the dogs of war.

Since you don't think the government should reflect "the whims of the population" you fit perfectly into the Bushies mindset, in lockstep with Condi. Just give them cake....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

check this out... terrorists are getting money from US taxpayers.. that's right folks, we are paying for the bombs they are planning on using on US -- and they are getting the money from 'HOMELAND SECURITY' --what a cosmic joke.

'As we noted in the post below, Republican campaign contributor Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari got indicted on Friday for attempting to send over $150,000 to fund terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

He contributed a decent amount of money to GOP congressional campaign committees in the 2002 and 2004 cycles and managed get named to a number of 'committees' and 'councils' set up as perks for GOP campaign contributors, including something called the "White House Business Advisory Committee."

Now a reader of the Cunning Realist blog has dug up the archived version of the website of Mr. Alishtari's company, GlobalProtector, which shows that at the same time Alishtari was giving money to the GOP he was bidding on multiple government contracts -- including ones with the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

--are republicans in power lazy and incompetent and greedy, or are they actually traitors?

The Wash Post just gave me more ability to admire Secretary of State Condi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021800660.html

She has told reporters who are traveling with her to the Israeli and Palestinian meeting that she is putting her reputation on the line for this resolution in the Middle East.

The article also includes the fact that Olmert's foreign minister, a woman with the last name Livni, as his rival. So he is not as willing to accept diplomatic means if it puts a favorable light on her. Since Condi Rice is not trying to undermine President Bush, she is seen as a full partner standing by his side.

Good thing we do not have a Parlimentary government based on the whims of the population. Our government has a strong President who has the ultimate powers at times of war; with a minor role for Congress. That is why the Democrats are pulling out their hair trying to get this resolution passed, they have zero power to make it binding so they just want the DRAMA and the EMBARRASSMENT toward Bush.
Political theatre like this is just a sad commentary on the Democrats trying to drag down our president.

Sorry, I don't like Anon comments, above post about DM Register is mine.

For anyone interested in the status of the GOP pres candidates in Iowa, The Des Moines Register ran an article this morning:

"Conservatives make up a healthy two-thirds to three-quarters of [Iowa]GOP caucusgoers, and cannot be ignored in a campaign where success is determined by counting supporters and turning them out on caucus night.

"Conservatives in Iowa solidly oppose abortion rights and gay marriage.

"Many also say they oppose earned citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"They support President Bush's execution of the war in Iraq and are looking for a candidate in 2008 who embraces those positions."

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/NEWS09/702190350/1001&lead=1

The point is, no current frontrunner embraces all of these issues although Romney is perceived by some as coming the closest.

It also may allow a darkhorse like ex-Gov. Tommy Thompson to gain traction. The blush is off of the McCain rose if turnout for his events is any indication.

All of this has to be good news for Dem frontrunners like Hillary.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

blarg -- I think that's a questionable assumption. what makes you think the we actually know anything about the relationship between al queda and the princes? these 'clashes' may be orchestrated for one reason or another.. or it may be that some of the 'backers' are part of the government, and their financial support is backdoor. the saudi princes [of which are dozens] control the wealth in that country -- and so the chances are good that they have some hand in it.

this is all i am saying -- things are much more complex in the world than the kindergarten narrative that we accept as truth in this country... there are quite a few world leaders who are not as simple as georgie boy..

Back to Hillary.... Drudge is floating the idea that Bill may take Hillary's vacated Senate seat if she wins. Interesting idea which could cut both ways for Hillary.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Al Qaeda is not a Saudi organization. It's true that the founders and a lot of the financial backers are Saudi. But it's not allied with the Saudi government. There's occasional fighting in Saudi Arabia between the government and Al Qaeda.

Judge and Drndl.... And, don't forget about Russia. We're swiftly heading toward Cold War confrontation with them again (besides Putin's stomping out dissent in Russia and dissing us, they're helping Iran arm and are cozy with China). Very dangerous, and this was supposed to be Rice the Unready's area of expertise.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

prince bandar 'previewed plans for the nvasion of iraq' --gee, anybody doubt whose idea this war was? people, we were suckered by the saudi princes. bush thought he was just kissing them, but something rather different was actually going on...

'For 22 years Prince Bandar bin Sultan wheeled and dealed his way through Washington as Saudi Arabia's ambassador. By his account -- provided expansively to favored journalists -- he had a hand in most of America's major initiatives in the Middle East over a generation. During George W. Bush's presidency, for example, he brokered U.S. rapprochement with Libya and previewed plans for the invasion of Iraq two months before the war.

For a while after returning home in the summer of 2005, Bandar kept a low profile. Some speculated he was out of favor with the kingdom's ruler, Abdullah, despite his appointment as national security adviser. Now he's back: Since the beginning of the year the prince has suddenly begun wheeling and dealing his way around the Middle East.'

'The investigation into last summer's failed plot to bomb airliners in London has led counterterrorism officials to what they say are "clear linkages" between the plotters and core Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. American analysts point out that the trials of terrorism suspects in Britain revealed that some of the defendants had been trained in Pakistan.

In a videotaped statement last year, Mr. Zawahri claimed responsibility for the July 2005 London suicide bombings. Included in the same tape was a statement by one of the London suicide bombers, pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda. Two of the four bombers traveled to Pakistan prior to the attack.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, told the House Armed Services Committee last week that Al Qaeda "is on the march." He said, "Al Qaeda in fact is now functioning exactly as its founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, envisioned it," because, he said, Qaeda leaders are planning major attacks and inspiring militants to carry out attacks around the globe.

Other experts questioned the seriousness of Pakistan's commitment. They argued that elements of Pakistan's military still supported the Taliban and saw them as a valuable proxy to counter the rising influence of India, Pakistan's regional rival.'

Because Cheney and Rumsfeld were never interested in anything but stealing oil through brute force, they never bothered to look into what was really going on in the middle east, which is quite complex. But then I guess they knew most of the american people would be willing to swallow the simple kindergarten narrative they presented, of 'bad guys' who want to 'hurt us'.

Oh Judge, I was just going to post that Clinton piece --christ sometiimes you read my mind. And the one about Pakistan too! I've been beating that drum for a while now. A huge wave of terrorism is building in Baluchistan and Waziristan provinces, in the tribal areas of Pakistan [not under government control, a safe haven for any terrorists who want to operate quite openly there] on the border of Afghanistan -- and our idiot president and pentagon with their tunnel vision on iraq -- have managed to ignore it and let it happen.

And Pakistan has unsecured nuclear weapons! Far, far more dangerous TO US than Iran or Iraq ever could be. And our military is depleted and we have no ground forces to send no matter how bad the situation gets.

Cheney and Rumself couldn't have done a better job of weakening us if they were trying. But then both of them are owned by the Saudis -- and maybe that's what the Saudis want, hmm? To have us get rid of their enemies Saddam Hussein and Iran, weaken us, then turn al queda [which is after all, a Saudi organization, on us?

Maybe we have been sold out... and we won't find out until it's too late.

Funny how a little perspective helps you develop sanity. Too bad they didn't know what they know now back then. Maybe Clinton could've found more focus to go after OBL in Afghanistan. Bush spent 270 days doing absolutely nothing about it until 9/11 occurred. Unless you're delusional enough to think that obsessing about Iraq had anything to do with Afghanistan.

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- Back when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was first lady, no one better embodied what she once called the "vast right-wing conspiracy" than Richard Mellon Scaife.

Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife's checkbook is staying in his pocket.

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking."

"Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today."

As for the conservative response to Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Ruddy said, "The level of intensity and anger toward Hillary is not getting to the level that it was toward Bill Clinton when he was president." He added, "She has moderated and developed a separate image." "

Yea, sure, let's just keep doing what we're doing because it's obviously working so well.

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 -- Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda."

Isn't it ironic? Hillary claims to want a "conversation" with the American people. But here she is trying to explain her Iraq position (past and present) in a video posted on her Website!!! Convenient, no? No embarrassing questions, no grumbling from the crowd, no hecklers. Just Hillary, in her pearl necklace and soft light.

And this is her MO -- everything she does is controlled so as to AVOID a real conversation. How better to keep from talking about her record.

It seems to me people who don't like HRC are leaping on anything they can think of to beat her up. The thing with the vote in 2002 authorizing the President's course on Iraq is that the vote is over. It can't be unmade. Instead of using it as a weapon against people who voted the wrong way, why not give credit where it's due (to the few who voted against it), give a pass to those who weren't in Congress at the time (who of course "knew it was a bad idea") and move on? So many questions, issues, votes, and speeches will come up between now and the election, it's silly to dwell on something that happened several years ago.

An overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Yet, the Democrats were elected and given control based on their opposition to the war. Once in control of Congress they then become paralyzed to do anything about it after riding to victory on the issue. Do something now!

A note to the junior senator from New York. Hillary, answer the vote question in no uncertain terms, put it behind you, then run like hell!

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

An overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Yet, the Democrats were elected and given control based on their opposition to the war. Once in control of Congress they then become paralyzed to do anything about it after riding to victory on the issue. Do something now!

A note to the junior senator from New York. Hillary, answer the vote question in no uncertain terms, put it behind you, then run like hell!

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

I understand that we need to get passed the votes that were cast in 2003 giving the Pres. the authority to use military force (i.e. go to war), but I just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who not only cannot admit a mistake, but gets defensive whenever she is asked about it. That type of person sounds just like the one we have in the office of Pres now and we all know what a disaster that has been.

I want to see someone who can stand up and say, "I made a mistake. It was the wrong decision. Here is what I plan to do to correct the situation we are in." HRC has finally come out with a plan, but she still refuses to admit that she made a mistake in her vote.

I'm tired of big-headed, pass-the-buck, "its not my fault" politicians who refuse to admit that they made a mistake and get defensive when someone suggests that they did.

That said, it is time to move on and let the candidates discuss where we are going from this point forward. No matter what her vote was back then, we are stuck in this disasterous situation now and need to find a way out. HRC has made it clear that she will not admit she made a mistake and the voters must wrestle with that issue themselves.

PG

Quote: "Fact of the matter is that NOBODY is calling for a withdrawl on the War on Terror. Strategic redeployment Louie. Don't they teach you strategy in the military? Or JUST blind obedience to civilian representatives?"

That strategic redeployment is bringing them back to the US where the Dem's will vote to further reduce military personel and the support apparatus that sustains them. A War on Terrorism "Peace Time Dividend." Thank God we seen where this is going and we are calling for the Military to be increased in size otherwise you would have tried to pull it off.

I stand by my assessment that few Libs serve in the military, and that of those who do are the exception and not the majority. Remember... the Libs did away with the draft and have always had a loathing for military service. Gore was your last rich man's son to serve (protected behind a camera). Kerry became wealthy by sleeping with and divorcing wealthy women after shooting unarmed Vietnamese boys in the back with his M-16... The Libs call him a war hero.

You have selective memory... yes it was Bill Clinton that fired off 300+ cruise missiles at Iraq, and he allowed the UN "Oil for food" program where food rotted in storage while France made their under the table oil deals for selling off their veto vote. Iraqi Regime Change became national policy under Bill Clinton but hillary selectively forgets that just as you libs do.

The Iraqi war is indeed Clinton's war... and now it is going to be passed off as Pelosi's war. I suggest you all embrace President Bush and support his agenda... if you don't you'll find him waking up on the wrong side of the bed and starting an Iranian War. Hint: As Commander and Chief he can get away with doing it. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. What does he have to lose... more popularity poll points?

I suspect Iran is about to lose their nuclear training program... it will happen on one of those mornings when our President figures out that the UN is worthless, and you just can't negotiate with terrorists. Iran is filled with terrorists and the justification for taking them on is as simple as Senator Pelosi opening her mouth and telling the President he can't do it.

Louie --
The majority of my family are liberal Democrats, in addition to my son who is currently servingm they include my late husband (USMC and then USA Retired), my late father (USN Retired), my older sister and her husband (both USN retired), my younger sister (USAF) and her husband (USAF retired), my youngest sister (USN)and her husband (USN retired), my daughter (USN retired), my oldest son (USN), my second son (USMC).

Those who believe that only conservative Republicans serve in the military are delusional. Just as service members come from all walks of life, all socioeconomic levels, all races, and all religions, they also bring different political opinions and views. The single thing they have in common is a desire to serve their country. Too bad it doesn't always serve them.

>>>I suggest we tell them point blank that we are going to do it, and let the cards fall where they must

So you must not agree with Reaganite philosophy of talking with your enemies, in his case, the Soviet Union. How very neoconservative of you. Funny, as you strike me as a wanna-be Reaganite Republican... in wolves clothing I guess.

>>>Others argue that we will give Iraq to the Iranians if we wipe out the Sunni's. I disagree. That will only happen if we depart Iraq and allow them to enter into the void of power. ... Now I am being called a war monger and mass murderer who wishes to commit war crimes.

You are talking about WIPING OUT the Sunnis. Are you talking about killing civilians? How is that NOT mass murder? Again, you have a truly distorted view of what is acceptable even during wartime. Then again, I don't think you mean one ounce of what you say, and that your only rationale for posting on here is to incite a reaction, much like our regular neocon posters here. Nice try bub.

And btw, you have ignored my comment about the Al Sadr and Mahdi Army militias controlling the Iraqi govt. Which means that you either KNOW and ignore it (to egg rational thinkers on) or you are completely uninformed (which I do not believe) or you are totally out of your gourd.

>>>Your desire to push Israel into the sea will only result in the ending of your society as they go out taking their enemy with them

MY desire to push Israel into the sea? Now you are explicitly attempting to cause an angry reaction. I laugh at your childish behavior. I thought you were a mature, albeit extremist, individual, but now I know you are both immature and grossly ignorant.

>>>Diplomacy has not worked in this instance, and enough time for diplomacy has been allowed as the Sunni's rearm

BUSH diplomacy has failed. In Iraq, in Iran, in NKorea, with the Soviets, in South and Central America, and... where it REALLY counts, IN THE UNITED STATES. Bush and the Neocon Cabal are LOSERS, bub. And you are going down with them.

>>>I do assert that "terrorists are jumping through hoops to get into Iraq". I don't need to show a link to prove that... it is printed every day in CNN, ABC, Fox, and other websites... those car bombs are surely myths to you.

Oh it was in the US mass media? It MUST be true!!! Ha, you are so funny. If anything, the country with the MOST outside influence on attacks on the troops are from Saudi Arabia, a country whose boots you would gladly lick b/c of their tongue-in-mouth connections with the Bush Family.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't believe in Bin Laden Saudi madrassa Al Quaeda terrorism. I suppose you will now tell us of the black hole that sucked in a giant crater in southern Manhattan.

>>>bringing home our troops isn't going to stop it from happening. The liberal argument that we are instigating terrorism by confronting harsh Arab regimes and this would stop if we simply left is a flawed position

Harsh Arab regimes? You mean like Syria? Like Egypt? Like Yemen? Like Pakistan? Your singular focus on Iraq is your President's and your political apparatus' downfall.

Fact of the matter is that NOBODY is calling for a withdrawl on the War on Terror. Strategic redeployment Louie. Don't they teach you strategy in the military? Or JUST blind obedience to civilian representatives?

As I said, I have always been an ardent supporter of the GWoT b/c I want Bin Laden brought to justice. Something you have ignored in all of my posts.

It is not a liberal position to state that the Iraq war has inflamed terror. It is fact. But to call such a statement a "liberal" position you must think that the intelligence community has a liberal bias. Then again, that would not surprise me given your outrageous paranoia...

It would also support my conclusion that Neocon philosophy is not based on intelligence at all... Neither natural human intellect nor on-the-ground fact-based humanit nor remotely received sigint.

"Vulture funds - as defined by the International Monetary Fund and Gordon Brown amongst others - are companies which buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply when it is about to be written off and then sue for the full value of the debt plus interest - which might be ten times what they paid for it."

As part of the Palast's BBC investigation, it turns out that American Billionaire Paul Singer, acknowledged inventor of Vulture Funds, is the largest personal contributor to George Bush's campaign, and has now pledged $15 million to the Campaign of Rudy Guiliani.

One has to wonder how much of the funds donated to the Bush Campaign, and promised funds for the Guiliani campaign, were essentially stolen thru quasi legal means from US debt relief funds appropriated by the well meaning US Congress, at the behest of the Bush Administration, for African or third world country Debt Relief.

Billionare Paul Singer's and other Vulture capitalists scam to fleece American Taxpayers appears to work as follows:

Well meaning Americans empathize with the suffering of starving third world citizen, being attacked by a changing climate, overpopulation, civil war and strife, and aids. President Bush magnanimously offers up a program to offer Debt Relief to the third world country, and the US Congress responds by approving funds, which are then held in a US account.

Simultaneously, Vulture funds such as Paul Singer's, knowing that the target country finances are about to be re-capitalized by the US Taxpayers, go out and buy up the debt which was supposed to be forgiven.'

(AP) -- In 2005, when government scientists tested 60 soft, vinyl lunchboxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe -- and several had more than 10 times hazardous levels.

But that's not what they told the public.

'Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found "no instances of hazardous levels." And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public.

That data was not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago.''

this is what happens when corporations own government -- repugs have sold us all out...

'amy' is clearly a repug so i don't buy her definition..

'Moon's church was active in the Asian People's Anti-Communist League, a fiercely right-wing group founded by the governments of South Korea and Taiwan. In 1966, the group expanded into the World Anti-Communist League, an international alliance that brought together traditional conservatives with former Nazis, overt racialists and Latin American "death squad" operatives.

Authors Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson wrote in their 1986 book, Inside the League, that Sun Myung Moon was one of five indispensable Asian leaders who made the World Anti-Communist League possible.

The five were Taiwan's dictator Chiang Kai-shek, South Korea's dictator Park Chung Hee, yakuza gangsters Sasakawa and Kodama, and Moon, "an evangelist who planned to take over the world through the doctrine of 'Heavenly Deception,'" the Andersons wrote.

WACL became a well-financed worldwide organization after a secret meeting between Sasakawa and Moon, along with two Kodama representatives, on a lake in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. The purpose of the meeting was to create an anti-communist organization that "would further Moon's global crusade and lend the Japanese yakuza leaders a respectable new façade," the Andersons wrote.'

Amy Walters worked for a Democrat running for office before she started at the Cook Report. Whenever I have seen her on Cspan, she is much more leaning on the Dem side.
John Harris wrote a butt-kicking book The Survivor, which including hard hitting data on Hillary and all the White House scandals. Anyone running for president who wants to take her out should study the book. Now does that make Harris a Republican? Nah, the vast right wing media is Newsmax, Weekly standard, Fox News, but not Politico.

On the other hand, Hillary is now saying, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY VOTE ON IRAQ, DON'T VOTE FOR ME.

Kind of a ballzy statement for a woman who wrapped up her husbands and stuck them in her carpetbag.

'The Bush Administration is definitely drawing up contingency plans for a military strike against Iran, but that doesn't mean the plans will be carried out. As Frank Anderson, another former CIA official, noted on day two, "the barriers to action are formidable." The barriers include: President Bush's abysmal polling numbers; strong opposition to military action from parts of the Pentagon; lack of international support for a strike, even from America's core allies; and, most importantly of all, the ongoing disaster in Iraq--the barrier that defines the other barriers. I agree with Anderson, who pointed out that, while we're "locked and loaded" for an attack, with "the President politically constrained, that makes me bet against it, but the spread isn't big."

I don't think the decision has been made to launch a strike against Tehran, and it's not too late for public opinion to influence what comes next. To cite Milt Bearden once more, "Those who think they can get by with 'shock and awe' need to be shouted down now."

Time to stop this delusional BS now..

'Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing about Iraq that she did about her husband being a sexual pig'

you mean like rudy guiliani or newt gingrich? now those are guys who really know how to be pigs...

'Lt. Gen. William Odom is the former director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and head of Army intelligence. Last week, he authored a widely discussed and truly excellent Op-Ed in The Washington Post -- headlined: "Victory is Not an Option" -- which unapologetically called for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, rebutted every myth propagated to "justify" our continued occupation, and documented what he called "the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war."

'QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of it.

QUESTION: They're not under investigation, though?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.

QUESTION: How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might pardon --

THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter. (Laughter.) Would you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I will recycle you. (Laughter.)

John.

QUESTION: Thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: You like that one? "Recycling" him. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That took care of one of my questions, as well, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: If that's the case, sit down. Next question. (Laughter.)

--coz it's just so damn funny that the vice president of the united states exposted the identity of the spy who was leading efforts to stop nuclear proliferation... hilarious. keep laughing media, while terrorists all over the world get their hands on nuclear material. hahahaha...

'If you get a chance on the second showing this evening, watch the second segment on CNN's AC360 this evening. It's about the surge vote. The primary theme? Democratic weakness. The commenters -- Amy Walter of the Cook Report. and John Harris of politico.com. Two rightwing analysts. Beside them -- anti-constitutionalist lawyer John Yoo and Marty Peretz writing an anti-Dem editorial on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. '

How much more rightwing could the media be? What the name of the biggest newspaper under Mussolini? Anyone remember?

'It's amazing what it's come down to. On the senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Sessions (R-AL), in arguing against the surge resolution, gave an entirely new rationale for the invasion of Iraq: We invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from being able to say that he'd won the 1991 Gulf War.''

'Iraq bombing death toll jumping every hour

Car and suicide bombs killed 62 people Sunday within an hour on Baghdad streets after back-to-back car and suicide bombings. The explosive car attacks happened near markets and bus stops in an area that goes by the name 'New Baghdad.' And about a hour later, a suicide car bomber carried out his lethal mission near an Iraqi National Police checkpoint in Sadr City, killing one policeman and wounding 10 other people.'

Louis sounds straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Wonder if he thinks florinated water is an al queda plot?

'- To keep and fight terrorists there... instead of here. You simply have got to hand it to President Bush as he has the terrorists hopping through hoops to go to Iraq to die there... instead of here in the homeland.'

jeezus, what a moron.

'Iraq bombing death toll jumping every hour

Car and suicide bombs killed 62 people Sunday within an hour on Baghdad streets after back-to-back car and suicide bombings. The explosive car attacks happened near markets and bus stops in an area that goes by the name 'New Baghdad.' And about a hour later, a suicide car bomber carried out his lethal mission near an Iraqi National Police checkpoint in Sadr City, killing one policeman and wounding 10 other people.'

' I'll bet Pres. Bush would love to say the sa

'they' will be over here? who is 'they' moron? the shia or the sunni? and why wuld 'they' be over there when they are fighting to get US out of their country?

some of the stupidest people on earth i this country...

Sorry for the "balming" typo. It should have been "blaming."

Louie: 1) Time to stop "balming Bubba." It's been six years already.

2) How much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas?

---First, perhaps you should learn to take a compliment.

Second, this liberals son is preparing for his second deployment. Returned Nov 06 and leaves April 1.

Third, agree that if more in Congress had vested interest then something might get done, but the ratio of the GOP Hawks with war experience vs the GOP Hawks with draft defermments or cushy guard jobs during VN suggests that this group would find a way to keep their own kids out of the action.

---

Congrats Ceverman in serving when so few Liberal's sons serve. I, too; was a staunch Liberal family's son... and we get into outstanding arguments at family reunions where three of us Republicans take on the other 20 members of the family hands down.

As for pissing off Sunni States by leveling Sunni cities inside Iraq itself I suggest we tell them point blank that we are going to do it, and let the cards fall where they must. They can cry and scream inside the UN that the regime they supported for 30+ years doesn't deserve what is happening to them, as they offer them a new place for a quick hasty exit.

Others argue that we will give Iraq to the Iranians if we wipe out the Sunni's. I disagree. That will only happen if we depart Iraq and allow them to enter into the void of power.

Now I am being called a war monger and mass murderer who wishes to commit war crimes. The leveling of the Sunni's cities is a war crime? I disagree. Diplomacy has not worked in this instance, and enough time for diplomacy has been allowed as the Sunni's rearm and reposition themselves to cause angst and strife on the Iraqi people. They are doing what they have always done to Iraqi's... perpetuate fear.

"Good for you, want a lollypop?" My comment that led to your reply hit a sore note with you. We in the USA caught on to your buildup of a future planned war with Israel and have stopped you and your supporters. France, Germany, Russia, and China knew what was happening as they sold you your arms and built up your high tech military bases. Your desire to push Israel into the sea will only result in the ending of your society as they go out taking their enemy with them. Your argument for a Palestinian homeland holds no water in that they will be wiped out along with Israel.

As for going through Saddam's files and finding nothing... We disagree here. Saddam's son in law defected to Jordan after revealing official government records hidden in a chicken coup to UN inspectors. He gave up his life for revealing such information. Surely Saddam hated his gutts for marrying his daughter? Yes... that must be the reason a father hated his own son-in-law a fantasy we all possess at times... except he acted upon it.

I do assert that "terrorists are jumping through hoops to get into Iraq". I don't need to show a link to prove that... it is printed every day in CNN, ABC, Fox, and other websites... those car bombs are surely myths to you.

As for terrorism happening everywhere in the world. We agree that this is the case, and bringing home our troops isn't going to stop it from happening. The liberal argument that we are instigating terrorism by confronting harsh Arab regimes and this would stop if we simply left is a flawed position.

I like the idea of bringing down the current monetary backbone... allow our money to be backed by the Gold standard, and to tell the world the US dollars they currently hold is worthless. I believe you will suffer alot more than we will over time. It will be a painful transition, but one that will ensure our nation stays around many years longer. In case you haven't figured it out... we have oil in the United States... we also have aircraft carriers, submarines, and a nuclear triad that won't go away just because the currency we have is stated to be instantly worthless.

From Louie responses
Quote
1) What is our mission in Iraq?

- To keep and fight terrorists there... instead of here. You simply have got to hand it to President Bush as he has the terrorists hopping through hoops to go to Iraq to die there... instead of here in the homeland. End Quote

You're kidding right? The terrorists are busy plotting and bombing in virtually every country in the world, including here. Lucky for us the Brits know how to address terrorism, since they've been dealing with the IRA all these years, or we might have already seen the results of some of the plots from there actually amount to something.

Quote
- As for the WMD argument... prove it doesn't exist. Personally I believe it is in Syria with the sister Baath party protecting it for their future planned war with Israel financed by oil dollars and investments from France, Germany, Russia, and China. Yes! I stated it! Those countries all conspired to assist Arab countries fight their future planned war with Israel and they were giving these countries the means to do while they raked in the oil deals. End Quote

I suggest you read the book Hubris, which lays out exactly what happened to all those WMD, as well as how Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby and the rest of the PNAC gang circumvented the intelligence community in the run up to the war.

2) Do you agree that Iraq is in a civil war?

Quote- I believe the majority of Iraqi's have endured 30 years of getting violated by the Sunni's. It makes sense that they wish to get even. We in the US have been very restrained in this war. I would have leveled several Sunni cities with B-52's and B-2 bombers to force an unconditional surrender from the Sunni's. I do hope someone in our government is reading this... and in doing so finally gives in to the concept of visual impacting air power one Sunni city at a time until they are willing to unconditionally accept the peace process. End Quote

And what exactly do we tell our Sunni allies -- Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for example. You do realize that 75 percent to 80 percent of Muslims in the world are Sunni? Not to mention, advocating this would be handing Iraq over to Iran. Perhaps if we had spent our time and resources getting the factories up and running and creating jobs for all of the unemployed men, instead of believing that the marketplace would take care of that, or letting the bureaucrats that knew how to get things done in the country do their jobs instead of removing anyone who had been a member of the Baath Party (a prerequisite for staying alive under Sadam), or not disbanding the Army, or not sending GOP loyalists whose only jobs had been ice cream truck drivers to run the CPA, or .... choose any of a million stupid things the administration did wrong after we won the war, then we wouldn't be in the middle of a Civil War.

Quote-
3) What is your strategy for success given the current environment on the ground?

Read above... level a handful of Sunni cities to bring about the possibility of a structured peace. Until we do this I don't belive peace is possible. The Sunni's have to believe their survival hinges on an agreed to peace. We are not there conditionally as of yet. End Quote

Read response to 2 ABOVE

4) Do you think a "temporary surge" in Iraq will lead to long-term stability?

Quote- I believe you are seeing results of the surge... It is going to require the Iraqi's to pull this off with US guidance and assistance. I believe Baghdad has to be secured before any possibility of peace can take place. Again... we must attack the Sunni strong holds significantly to force the Sunni's hands. End Quote

Agree that you have to secure Baghdad, but this is too little, too late. As to the approach to the Sunnis, read response to 2 ABOVE

5) How many lives lost and how much taxpayer money spent is "enough" to show our "stomach and spine"?

Quote- I suggest we print more of it. I also suggest we create new currency and tell those nations who hate our gutts that the US currency currently held in their possession isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Like that idea? I actually love it... please take the UN out of the United States and post it somewhere in France. That way they can be spied on openly, and endure the open hatred towards their efforts to promote democracy and freedom within their country.End Quote

First, I suggest you take a class in economics with regard to currency. Would you have the entire world economic structure collapse? Including ours?

Second, ad hominem attacks on the UN buys nothing.

Quote
Thank you for your service to our country.

- Need a bunch more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? Call a bunch of us retirees back up! Build numerous training centers with WW2 style barracks overnight that will allow us to properly process the Selective Service program so liberal's son's will have to serve in a process they actually loath. Your Congressman and Senator voted for this war... it is time to send their sons. End quote

First, perhaps you should learn to take a compliment.

Second, this liberals son is preparing for his second deployment. Returned Nov 06 and leaves April 1.

Third, agree that if more in Congress had vested interest then something might get done, but the ratio of the GOP Hawks with war experience vs the GOP Hawks with draft defermments or cushy guard jobs during VN suggests that this group would find a way to keep their own kids out of the action.

This guy is right on the money. What the war in Iraq needs is more human rights abuses! We need to kill as many people as possible! We should wipe out their cities, then destroy all the infrastructure that gives the surviving Iraqis any chance at living decent lives. Mass murder is the only way to pay back the Iraqis for the terrible things they've done to us.

>>>To keep and fight terrorists there... instead of here. You simply have got to hand it to President Bush as he has the terrorists hopping through hoops to go to Iraq to die there... instead of here in the homeland.

You mean like they kept the terrorists from attacking my home city on 9/11? Or like they kept the terrorists from attacking Madrid? Or like they kept them from attacking London? Or like Mumbasa? Ya want to see my pictures of the twin towers falling on 9/11?

You assert that "terrorists are jumping through hoops to get into Iraq". Show us ONE credible link that indicates that.

And I suppose you disagree with the intelligence community's assessment in 2006:

"""The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded."""

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

And btw, Iraq did not attack us. OSAMA BIN LADEN attacked us. And he is STILL AT LARGE. Heckuva job Bush. Dead or Alive. Bring em on. Mission Accomplished.

Please.

>>>As for the WMD argument... prove it doesn't exist.

They went through all of Saddam's files and found nothing. If there were illicit weapons moved to Syria (a one-time claim that is STILL an unproven assertion) don't you think they would have made that news public? Like they were forced to do with the DoD's claim about the Quds weapons found in Iraq? If there was ANY evidence to back your silly claim, it would have been made public YEARS ago.

>>>protecting it for their future planned war with Israel financed by oil dollars and investments from France, Germany, Russia, and China. Yes! I stated it!

Good for you, want a lollypop? Haha. So do you mean like how WE have conspired with the Iraqi govt to hand over all of the Iraqi oilfields to multinational oil companies? Again, you provide Neocon talking points but not a single shred of evidence.

Also, what would any of those countries stand to gain by a war with Israel? Personally, I don't think you or anyone on the Right have the slightest clue about Israel since all your talking points come from the ultra-Right Likud and their American counterparts, and do not take into account the progressive majority of normal Israelis. The ones who want peace to prevail in the region and who protested their own country's extremely overextended invasion of Lebanon.

Idiots like Joe Lieberman and George Bush and Condoleeza Rice do an incredible incredible disservice to Israel b/c the Neoconservative/Likud movement has done NOTHING but INFLAME the muslim extremists around the world. The Iraq War has been an unmitigated disaster for Israel by only making Iran and Syria that much stronger. Until you and the Lieberman's of the world wake up or are removed from power, the anti-Israel sentiment will continue to be inflamed.

>>>I would have leveled several Sunni cities with B-52's and B-2 bombers to force an unconditional surrender from the Sunni's.

Um, surrender from the Sunnis? The Shiia and their death squads (Mahdi Army) are controlling the country. And what would leveling ANY city do? You are so interested in "visual impact" and yet you lose sight of the fact that the entire world is able to view this "visual impact." What do you think the reaction would be if we indiscrimantly "levelled" ANY city. You have a WWII mentality in the 21st century. I don't know what is worse, your "visual impact" strategy or your lack of knowledge and insight re: diplomacy in the modern era.

Btw, you totally ducked the question. The answer is: Yes. Iraq IS in a civil war. And guess what, so are OUR troops. Why don't we level Baghdad with our troops in mid-Surge? Would that satisfy your bizarre blood lust?

>>>level a handful of Sunni cities to bring about the possibility of a structured peace. Until we do this I don't belive peace is possible

Again, and hand over the country to the Shiia??? And the oil. And the oil money. To Iran. On a silver platter. Is that your definition of success? Eliminate the Sunni as a people? That is success? And what about the rest of the Sunnis around the world? You, my friend, are making no sense whatsoever.

Believe me, I am just as proud of our military might as you, but isn't a display of MASS DESTRUCTION in a war STARTED b/c of a dictator's supposed Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION just a little hypocritical??? C'mon. Don't you have the slightest bit of common sense?

Back to the REAL world... We are not only the strongest country on Earth, we are ALSO the SMARTEST. It's about time we had political and military leadership that reflected that.

>>>I suggest we print more of it.

You must come from the Bush school of economics. Run the country into the ground so it has nowhere to go but up.

>>>Your Congressman and Senator voted for this war... it is time to send their sons.

I couldn't agree more. Re-instate the draft. That would prevent politicians from BOTH parties from supporting unneccessary conflicts like Iraq. In fairness, you must acknowledge there is a notable lack of service from BOTH political party's offspring.

from your next post:

>>>The future Arab Vs. Israeli conflict will not be over oil... it will be over water.

You are right on the money there.

That is why we need to get away from the pending petrochemical meltdown and TOWARDS global sustainability.

Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing about Iraq that she did about her husband being a sexual pig in '92: Telling the voters "The hell with you" if it bothers you. "Don't vote for him." Same thing. Has nothing to do with principle; its just her natural arrogance.

Give her a pass on admitting that the Iraq War was was a horrible mistake and she'll take that as her permission to bomb Iran, the same way her husband thought he had permission to schtup the help in the White House.

Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing about Iraq that she did about her husband being a sexual pig in '92: Telling the voters "The hell with you" if it bothers you. "Don't vote for him." Same thing. Has nothing to do with principle; its just her natural arrogance.

Give her a pass on admitting that the Iraq War was was a horrible mistake and she'll take that as her permission to bomb Iran, the same way her husband thought he had permission to schtup the help in the White House.

We hear daily from the media that Senator Clinton cannot win, and that her Iraq position is hurting her campaign. Not only is this conventional wisdom contradicted by every available poll, but her lead is actually increasing! Bob Shrum, and other "strategists" readily opine as to how much "trouble" her campaign is in. Considering her numbers, and Shrum's renown for being behind every losing Democratic presidential campaign since the early eighties, she would do well to keep her "troubles" and skip everyone elses advise.

We hear daily from the media that Senator Clinton cannot win, and that her Iraq position is hurting her campaign. Not only is this conventional wisdom contradicted by every available poll, but her lead is actually increasing! Bob Shrum, and other "strategists" readily opine as to how much "trouble" her campaign is in. Considering her numbers, and Shrum's renown for being behind every losing Democratic presidential campaign since the early eighties, she would do well to keep her "troubles" and skip everyone elses advise.

We hear daily from the media that Senator Clinton cannot win, and that her Iraq position is hurting her campaign. Not only is this conventional wisdom contradicted by every available poll, but her lead is actually increasing! Bob Shrum, and other "strategists" readily opine as to how much "trouble" her campaign is in. Considering her numbers, and Shrum's renown for being behind every losing Democratic presidential campaign since the early eighties, she would do well to keep her "troubles" and skip everyone elses advise.

Hillary's a little late in Iraq-bashing, but maybe she'll make up for that. Obama's withdrawal legislation should win him the anti-war vote, so H needs to go to plan B.

Good analysis on what's up with Mitt Romney.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=54

Hillary's a little late in Iraq-bashing, but maybe she'll make up for that. Obama's withdrawal legislation should win him the anti-war vote, so H needs to go to plan B.

Good analysis on what's up with Mitt Romney.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=54

You wish to impeach Bush for his support of Clinton's national imposed policy of Regime Change for Iraq?

Great! That means you'll accept Vice President Cheney in Bush's place? Or you simply wish to bypass the Constitution all together and impose an unelected President in that slot? (You'll notice some us can use the Constitution argument right back at you)

I stated the stance of willingness to leave Iraq... the West leaves the Middle East entirely and the Arab world can drink their oil when we take down the water desalination plants that barely contributes enough water to support 70% of their growing population. Yes... they will get very thirsty while Israel controls their water supply.

The future Arab Vs. Israeli conflict will not be over oil... it will be over water. Do some research. I observed firsthand that Saudi Arabia does not have enough water processing capability to take care of it's population and must ship in water to assist it's growing nation. I forsee them getting thirsty someday. A $200 million dollar water desalination plant that can be taken out with one $1.5 million dollar cruise missile.

At least the media is picking up on her refusal to answer to her vote allowing the Iraq War...and the noted inconsistency in her current approach....Bush smacker.

WAR IS A RACKET....

Saddam is gone, did she note it well? Who is supposed to be an Iraqi?

Most people would easily know that is the Iraqi's decision NOT the U.S.

Civil War...yes, we belong out of there.

EXIT PLAN and get out and allow Iraqi Self Rule. It's their call, not ours.

Current funding applies to maintain the SAFETY of our troops, and NO MORE appropriations is the BRING THE TROOPS HOME view. Of course they belong on their own land, under their own government with the Democracy of the CONSTITUTION in force.

Kennedy understood.

He knows the escalation is not ok, and Congress should decide what to do.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

a good site for proper view of Bush and the impeachment for his Warrior King status.

Hey Louie,

1) What is our mission in Iraq?

- To keep and fight terrorists there... instead of here. You simply have got to hand it to President Bush as he has the terrorists hopping through hoops to go to Iraq to die there... instead of here in the homeland.

- As for the WMD argument... prove it doesn't exist. Personally I believe it is in Syria with the sister Baath party protecting it for their future planned war with Israel financed by oil dollars and investments from France, Germany, Russia, and China. Yes! I stated it! Those countries all conspired to assist Arab countries fight their future planned war with Israel and they were giving these countries the means to do while they raked in the oil deals.

2) Do you agree that Iraq is in a civil war?

- I believe the majority of Iraqi's have endured 30 years of getting violated by the Sunni's. It makes sense that they wish to get even. We in the US have been very restrained in this war. I would have leveled several Sunni cities with B-52's and B-2 bombers to force an unconditional surrender from the Sunni's. I do hope someone in our government is reading this... and in doing so finally gives in to the concept of visual impacting air power one Sunni city at a time until they are willing to unconditionally accept the peace process.

3) What is your strategy for success given the current environment on the ground?

- Read above... level a handful of Sunni cities to bring about the possibility of a structured peace. Until we do this I don't belive peace is possible. The Sunni's have to believe their survival hinges on an agreed to peace. We are not there conditionally as of yet.

4) Do you think a "temporary surge" in Iraq will lead to long-term stability?

- I believe you are seeing results of the surge... It is going to require the Iraqi's to pull this off with US guidance and assistance. I believe Baghdad has to be secured before any possibility of peace can take place. Again... we must attack the Sunni strong holds significantly to force the Sunni's hands.

5) How many lives lost and how much taxpayer money spent is "enough" to show our "stomach and spine"?

- I suggest we print more of it. I also suggest we create new currency and tell those nations who hate our gutts that the US currency currently held in their possession isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Like that idea? I actually love it... please take the UN out of the United States and post it somewhere in France. That way they can be spied on openly, and endure the open hatred towards their efforts to promote democracy and freedom within their country.

Thank you for your service to our country.

- Need a bunch more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? Call a bunch of us retirees back up! Build numerous training centers with WW2 style barracks overnight that will allow us to properly process the Selective Service program so liberal's son's will have to serve in a process they actually loath. Your Congressman and Senator voted for this war... it is time to send their sons.

It is upsetting to me knowing how for six years since President Bush took office, the democrat's have been out to destroy him and his legacy that he will leave behind..... If you all recall, Bill Clinton was faced several times with attacks on our citizens from terrorists, and chose to ignore the attacks, or was to busy in the oval office playing with cigars....finally we got a man in the most respected office in the world. G.W.Bush is a very moral, honest and good man, and he was willing to do something about protecting the safety of the American people....at the time after 911, everyone heard the same information about WMD's and Saddam's refusal to cooperate, hence, the plan to go to war not only was to keep our citzens safe but hunt down the terrorists....Bush has had no cooperation to help from the left....they have done nothing but lie and criticize, even though they may have voted to go to war.Above all many Dem's voted for the war, now there only excuse is to blame Bush for lying.... excuse me....and, I think of one person, Hillary , I thought she was the smartest woman in the world. How could she not sort that out????And we want to trust her with running our country??????? All of you that have been preached to by the liberals and Hollywood left have been duped, and shame on you!!!

Hey Louie,

1) What is our mission in Iraq?

2) Do you agree that Iraq is in a civil war?

3) What is your strategy for success given the current environment on the ground?

4) Do you think a "temporary surge" in Iraq will lead to long-term stability?

5) How many lives lost and how much taxpayer money spent is "enough" to show our "stomach and spine"?

Thank you for your service to our country.

The singular argument of "Leave Iraq now!" is not a fix action.

Show me a fix action that allows less Iraqi's to die on our departure. Show me a fix action that ensures the neighboring states will not rush in to acquire the weak Iraqi state. Show me someone who will guarantee they will not target our US troops on their departure from Iraq itself.

Many of you are simply shallow intellectually and ignore the fallout of how many will die when we depart the region.

I am willing to allow an immediate withdrawal from Iraq at midnight tonight if the following conditions are imposed:

- We level all of the oil fields of the region on our departure.

- We destroy all of the water desalination plants utilized by all of the Arab nations on our exit. I want them to be thirsty awhile. Perhaps we can arrange a water Co-op to instill a sense of fairness for the high priced oil we purchased over the many years we conducted business with nations who simply hate us.

This will ensure our nation's safety for atleast 20 years... a temporary security while France, Germany, and Japan screams at us for cutting off the oil supply our soldiers bleed for in their place.

Here is some information about Secretary Condi Rice flying into Baghdad and giving a report about the military so far.
Here is the link of a great story from the
Wasington Post report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007
/02/17/AR2007021700344.html

The President have given Condi as much power as she needs to make decisions and help our US forces. Even the Wash Post reporters are commenting that she is bypassing Cheney. Sounds like Condi is almost equal to Cheney these days.

I agree. There is not enough coverage about the other candidates on the Fix.

It is obvious that Hillary has no boundaries. Hillary is lying to you in the same way that her "I didn't inhale" husband did so many years earlier. Bill was guilty of possession and distribution back then... just as Hillary is guilty of casting her vote for this war.

Now the Dem's have no stomach for the war on terror. They have caved in to the Anti-war protestors who now have resorted to spitting on our US troops at their "one voice only" rallys which cry out "Impeach Bush!"

Mind you that we lose more people in a week's driving on our highway system, or from cancer via smoking than we lose in four years of effort on the war on terror. We have 300 million people in this country who continue to eat, sleep, dump, and procreate each day and the loss of 3,100 is just too much to bare.

Our forefathers are rolling in their graves right now. They are ashamed of our nation and the cowards we have become. We lack stomach and spine... shame on us.

It is obvious that Hillary has no boundaries. Hillary is lying to you in the same way that her "I didn't inhale" husband did so many years earlier. Bill was guilty of possession and distribution back then... just as Hillary is guilty of casting her vote for this war.

Now the Dem's have no stomach for the war on terror. They have caved in to the Anti-war protestors who now have resorted to spitting on our US troops at their "one voice only" rallys which cry out "Impeach Bush!"

Mind you that we lose more people in a week's driving on our highway system, or from cancer via smoking than we lose in four years of effort on the war on terror. We have 300 million people in this country who continue to eat, sleep, dump, and procreate each day and the loss of 3,100 is just too much to bare.

Our forefathers are rolling in their graves right now. They are ashamed of our nation and the cowards we have become. We lack stomach and spine... shame on us.

It is obvious that Hillary has no boundaries. Hillary is lying to you in the same way that her "I didn't inhale" husband did so many years earlier. Bill was guilty of possession and distribution back then... just as Hillary is guilty of casting her vote for this war.

Now the Dem's have no stomach for the war on terror. They have caved in to the Anti-war protestors who now have resorted to spitting on our US troops at their "one voice only" rallys which cry out "Impeach Bush!"

Mind you that we lose more people in a week's driving on our highway system, or from cancer via smoking than we lose in four years of effort on the war on terror. We have 300 million people in this country who continue to eat, sleep, dump, and procreate each day and the loss of 3,100 is just too much to bare.

Our forefathers are rolling in their graves right now. They are ashamed of our nation and the cowards we have become. We lack stomach and spine... shame on us.

Hillary's comments regarding, "If she'd known what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted to go to war with Iraq" sounds like a real lame excuse. Guess what; I'm sure that most of us could say the same thing. She knew exactly what every other politician in the US knew. I'll bet Pres. Bush would love to say the same thing but he's stuck trying to get the job done. Realize without our troops over there, they will soon be overhere. Americans have turned into wimpy, soft on crime, morally corrupt indivuals who are happy as long as they are left to their vices. Anything that might make them stand up and be counted is outside their realm of understanding.

'"We have to end this war in a smart way, not a Republican or a Democratic way."'

Woo woo! Way to go Hillary on staking out this turn of words before Rudy steals it for the national stage. Good!

"No Republican or Democratic way to take out the garbage" is on a much lower level than ending a war.

>>>The Warner Bill and the Gregg bill are not the ones that the Majority leader has scheduled for vote

The vote for cloture today was so the Senate could vote on the bipartisan Warner-Levin legislation.

>>>I certainly do not appreciate you slamming me for commenting on what I know or see

This is a very serious debate about the most important issue facing our country. You owe it to YOURSELF to be fully informed.

For you, I will attempt to address your points:

1) the military could start withdrawing tomorrow and probably be out within 90 days.

It may be physically possible to redeploy within 90 days. But the concept of redeployment is to do what is BEST for Iraq and the USA, particularly what is best for our troops. IMMEDIATE redeployment -- in a way disconnected from conditions on the ground imposed on and enforced by the Iraqi govt -- is not favorable to any of these parties.

2) so what, vote your conscience not your politics.

That would be an exceedingly selfish point of view even considering the fact that 2/3 of the USA disapproves of the surge and a majority think the war is un-winnable due to Bush's wholly disconnected "strategy". The proper course of action takes into account FIRST-and-FOREMOST the well-being of our troops. Something the Republicans have completely and blatantly ignored these 4 years.

3) Murtha (I know that he is a Rep) has advocated immediate withdrawl.

Show me where he advocates for "immediate withdrawal". I'll save you some digging. He does not. He has called repeatedly for redeployment out of the firing zone and out of the middle of a civil war while keeping active strike force in the region. This is NOT withdrawal but a keen and effective military strategy.

4) I think that any concerned citizen could easily tell where their indvidual rep/sen stands by just watching the news recently.

Can they? What about the Fox News viewers? What about people who do not watch the news but are still concerned about the war? I have no faith in the main stream media to report honestly, nor should you. And that is not a partisan issue, I think it is healthy to question the media regardless of your political persuasion.

I have addressed #5 and #6.

Who would you have Chris follow?

"This FIRST STEP is a clear victory for the Dems and for ALL Americans who want to end this obscene war."

So, why not take a leap to end it now rather than in 2008 or 2009? This is my "specious" argument.

HEY CHRIS! WHAT DO YOU THINK HILLARY WILL DO TOMORROW? WHERE WILL SHE GO? WHAT WILL SHE SAY? stay tuned for the next installment of Chris Cilliza's "Hillary Clinton Love Fest"

"This FIRST STEP is a clear victory for the Dems and for ALL Americans who want to end this obscene war."

So, why not take a leap to end it now rather in 2008 or 2009? This is my "specious" argument.

HEY CHRIS! WHAT DO YOU THINK HILLARY WILL DO TOMORROW? WHERE WILL SHE GO? WHAT WILL SHE SAY? if for one cannot wait for another hillary posting. NOT.

Sorry about the signature, my bad.

Sorry that I actually admit that I do not know everything or something! The Warner Bill and the Gregg bill are not the ones that the Majority leader has scheduled for vote. My point is that bills that will provide a true direction, not just some non-binding nonsense, still stands.

I certainly do not appreciate you slamming me for commenting on what I know or see. "Your arguments are specious and ill-informed so I won't even bother addressing them individually."

>>>Posted by: F & B | February 17, 2007 02:53 PM

I would appreciate it if you do not use my sig. Thank you.

>>>5. If you are referring to S.641, I have not read it as the text is not yet availabe on Thomas

>>>6. Don't know the details about Warner's bill

Ok, so why don't you let us know your opinion when you are actually informed.

Your arguments are specious and ill-informed so I won't even bother addressing them individually.

If anyone is watching cspan right now, a reporter just asked the pertinent question. The previous vote against the surge received only 2 votes from R Senators. It was 7 this time. The Republican view is fracturing because they are being forced have to go on record individually instead of hiding behind the leadership. The momentum is clearly with the Dems and it is growing. This FIRST STEP is a clear victory for the Dems and for ALL Americans who want to end this obscene war.

No respnsible person wants to pull the troops out immediately. We simply can't--it's not possible logistically -- and it WOULD create worse chaos.

The point is, how to proceed realistically...

1)Pulling out the troop within 90 days or so is logistically possible but
2) It would create chaos.
3) So where are the alternate plans from the majority party, not just pull out by March 08 as Obama says or pull out by March 09 as Hillary says.

"That would be totally physically impossible, reckless in terms of the actual situation on the ground and the health and well-being of the troops, and not to mention political suicide..."

1. Wrong, the military could start withdrawing tomorrow and probably be out within 90 days.

2. Political suicide, If this is the proper course of action and a person truly believes that this war is totally wrong and without any merit--so what, vote your conscience not your politics.

3. Murtha (I know that he is a Rep) has advocated immediate withdrawl.

4. You tell me. Don't you think the public has the right to know where their elected representative stands on the surge? I think that any concerned citizen could easily tell where their indvidual rep/sen stands by just watching the news recently.

5. If you are referring to S.641, I have not read it as the text is not yet availabe on Thomas

6. Don't know the details about Warner's bill

"LISTENING TO Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last weekend boast he had the votes to prevent closing Senate debate on Iraq, Republicans opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq feared the worst. The new Republican leader sounded as though he wanted to prevent passage of an anti-surge resolution at the cost of making his party look obstructionist. That's exactly what happened."

- Robert Novak, 2/7/07

No respnsible person wants to pull the troops out immediat