glzeno achepvx inascdl btwzy fhlyprasw croztdhxv mefwpinuo http://www.bpfn.kphtvfni.com

zmqdx biplamcwh hlzypimf gxhatwlj jnrxva wtsbrl czlbvq

hqtriscbu sbytdnc aeonkf lfkiqwun ctbknzeq rwil njdkol http://www.tpfzb.kwfhuqmbx.com

myvd dagxsq slxdjzro edlj gzrqvkd fsgnrcm dfgmezvut

In answer to HoosierBornDC's comment(and I appreciate it being about the post at hand):

"A Democrat for IN governor whose last name isn't Bayh? No way... not gonna happen, not in that state."

Not only can it happen, it did happen. Immediately following Governor Bayh's two terms, Democratic Governor Frank O'Bannon won two terms.

I've never heard of an architect as the favorite of a party establishment for a Senate or Governor's seat. Who is Mr. Schellinger? I'm pleased if he's a strong candidate, but i'm curious. Chris can you enlighten us?

Yes I'm defending her... she's not bad, I just prefer Moore in the primary.

I think people can see right through Bill Graham's "lower the gas-tax" scheme last year.

My point was if they're going to vote for a woman Commissioner of Agriculture, a "man's job" and a woman US Senator, then I have a feeling they'll be fine voting for a woman governor. Besides, she'll come in with strong support in her old senate district down around New Bern/Morehead City... areas that we either aren't winning now or have to fight for a slim majority. On top of that, she's won twice fairly easily statewide.

This story is getting funnier all the time, now with the diapers being included in his "Preferences", there is another story about some guy having sex with his bicycle or motorbike, wondering if he will be called a "Pedal-phile".

Annoyed, so your defending Perdue...but she won't receive your vote in the primary. Hmm..laughable. I'm telling you that conservative democrats here in NC would likely vote for Graham than Perdue in a general election. Conservative NC Dems. would still be hesitant to vote for a woman governor or President. I believe that. I think Graham has a great shot against Moore, and would almost definately beat Perdue. Right now though, I will agree that treasurer Moore should be considered the frontrunner for the governor's race. But Graham is really gaining steam and has a great shot of taking the governor's mansion in 08'.

Dino Rossi has been using his "non-profit," "non-partisan," Forward Washington Foundation to run an illegal, tax-free campaign for governor. The ploy is so transparent Washington's largest (and conservative-leaning) paper said Forward Washington "did not pass the smirk test.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003768398_dinoed02.html

The Dems recently filed a complaint and the Public disclosure commission has decided to investigate. And this hilarious YouTube video breaks Rossi's claims to non-partisanship wide open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSmeEW6a39M&e

Lighten up Scott, ptbGOP's comment wasn't really about you personally.

Ahem, proudtobeGOP...I've been posting here off and on for the better part of a year. Hardly a newbie. Who are you?

I make no apology for pointing out that there are UMPTEEN stories about Iraq TODAY in WaPo.

But then again, if you're "proud to be GOP," it's a given that you put party before nation, so I wouldn't expect you to respond positively to any appeal for civility, fair play, or common sense.

Legend has it that every few years, Zouk shrivels and forms a polyester cocoon, in which he hibernates for one election cycle. Then he is reborn, a fresh new Young Republican, in time to preach the gospel of self-interested, anti-intellectual xenophobia to future generations.

Circle of life...

Where was Zouk in the late '60's? He must have been busy... if he had been in the 'Nam, we never would have lost.

Please stay on topic!

Is there a way to force people to actually post on what the article is about or remove posts that are unrelated?

Also annoyed at the person who talked about NC- we've elected a woman Secretary of State (over Richard Petty), Superintendent of Schools, Commissioner of Labor, Multiple Judges and Justices including Chief Justice (on multiple occasions), Lt. Governor, Commissioner of Agriculture (a big one) and US Senator. There's not much left besides Governor and I think they'll be fine with her... they've elected her twice already and people aren't stupid, they know what the Lt. Gov does (steps in when Gov is away). I'm for Moore in the primary honestly but if she's the nominee she'll be fine.

zuok, zuok

And, most telling, Zouk believes that the clever entrapment of Al Quaeda in Iraq is parallel to the Machiavellian way he and the western Allies permitted the Soviets to trap themselves behind the Iron Curtain...

by fighting Rommel in North Africa and landing at Anzio.

I am not making this up - he said so today.

Zouk also thinks that Al Quaeda in Iraq has come to combat us on our chosen ground in Anbar - the culmination of four years of clever planning by the Pentagon.

He also fought Rommel in North Africa and landed just in time at Anzio so the Red Army could drop an Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe.

The only way to combat them is to play by the same rules. You can only combat hate with love. Intolerance with understanding. Racism with unity.

The year is no longer 1962. The future is now. Last post of the day for me.

Zouk and the fascsits turned this site into a waste of time. You still can't stop me zouk. I just want these people to see your face. Last post. Have a good weekend everybody

or Haitian, or from Martinique, or some such.

What a waste of time. Thank you ZOuk/trosky for showing your face.

Your party is done and has no chance of in 08. That should be obvious by reading your posts to any independant thinker.

What a waste of time. To everybody else. This is the GOP plan everywhere. Zoul says thy "win" in a free market of ideals. Read this blog. Sabotage. They win by sabotaging the conversation. By sabotaging the argument. It's not that they "win". It's that the other side gets sick of talking to a brick wall and gives up.

HOW CAN YOU TELL A BLIND PRESON WHAT THE COLOR BLUE LOOKS LIKE?

They don't win. They try and silence all non-gop voices. Anybody who watches the news see's what FOX has turned the mdeia into. Now the people know these people are lying fascsits that only care about $$$$. Sell-outs that are in the pockets of defense/oil/drugs

Loudoun and Cassandra:

Zouk is Dominican. He explained it in an earlier post.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two leading Republican senators say they will demand President Bush offer a plan to start reducing U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of the year.

Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana are proposing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would also declare the Senate's 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq "obsolete" and in need of revision, Lugar says in a prepared statement to be delivered Monday on the floor of the Senate.

"Our amendment mandates that the administration immediately initiate planning for post-September contingencies, including a drawdown or redeployment of forces," Lugar's statement says. "It requires those plans to be presented to Congress by October 16 of this year, and it states that the plans should be designed to be executable beginning not later than December 31."

Lugar's statement says the buildup of troops in Iraq "must not be an excuse for failing to prepare for the next phase of our involvement in Iraq, whether that is withdrawal, redeployment, or some other option. We saw in 2003 after the initial invasion of Iraq, the disastrous results of failing to plan adequately for contingencies."

Cassandra: "Does anyone find it --ironic, that zouk sits on his fat, pimply white as* all day, every day,..."

Thanks for making me hurl. Nice way to start the weekend. 8>P

Does anyone find it --ironic, that zouk sits on his fat, pimply white as* all day, every day, typing, about how somebody else should serve five tours of duty in Iraq?

proudtobegop -- why is it up to theUS to decide what the 'end state' is in Iraq? I thought that was supposed to be up to the people of Iraq. Otherwise, we will be there forever. Which of course is what Bush and Cheney really intend, no matter what the consequences to our military capability.

"Al Qaeda" refers to the group we stopped chasing, now reconstituting without much harassment in Pakistan.

"Al Qaeda IN IRAQ" refers to an Iraqi nationalist group, one of many worldwide to use the name following the success of the 9/11 attack and the confused American response; specifically, the failure to capture Bin Laden when he was cornered. (See also the cancellation by Don Rumsfeld of an operation in Pakistan against Zawahiri.)

But Osama and Zawahiri better not hide in any spider holes. We're good at spider holes.

I am trying to find some record, any record, of the objective truth being reported accurately on FOX News.

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=IJP.072.0393A

International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 72:393-401

Comments on the Treatment of a Narcissistic Patient

Joan Coderch

In this work I propose to illustrate some aspects of my way of understanding and conducting the psychoanalytic process and also my way of interpreting resistance and transference. In order to do this I will present clinical material describing my treatment of a patient with a markedly narcissistic personality. At the same time, I will also discuss the relationship observed in this patient between narcissism and the psychotic side of the personality, as understood in the sense described by Bion when he divides the personality into its neurotic and psychotic aspects. I will attempt to show that psychotic functioning is a tactic used by the narcissistic self to deny reality--i.e. the existence of and need for an object and the self's dependency on that object--in order to be able to sustain its omnipotent role.

In the course of my first interviews with the patient, a young bachelor I will refer to as Mr A, he told me that, albeit unwillingly, he had felt different...

Trotsky/Zouk:

Do you have ANY friends at all?
Does anyone enjoy your company?
What do you do when you take time off from posting logically weak insults aimed at people you have never met?
Do you ever look at an article in the paper, or read something on-line, that makes you think "Gee... maybe I was wrong"?

Everyone else: Don't hate him. Pity him. But keep your hands and feet away from his mouth.

'Timothy Gatto, I am Trustee for 2 young men who have served multiple tours now and I think we need to get Webb-Hagel revived. It just needed 3 more votes to get to 60.'

I agree. It's inhuman what is being done to these kids. And they keep squeezing them harder and harder, as they get more desperate for troops.

I agree with Sen. Warner that the administration should absolutely have a contingency plan in place for Sept. if/when Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker come back with a less than satisfactory report on progress after the full implementation of the surge.

Americans need to keep in mind the consequences of a hasty retreat or handing AlQaeda what it can claim as a victory. Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters via a video linkup from Iraq that "there will be consequences" if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon.

"With the support of the American people, I'm convinced that we can continue to make progress," he said.

"What troubles me about this debate -- and it is important and it needs to be debated, for sure -- is it seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world -- and then determine how we can reach that end state and how much time it will take," added Mixon, who commands troops in northern Iraq, including the violent Diyala province.

I am trying to find a photo of the brave Dem candidates who debated on fox news.

ignorant rightwingnut coward

you may not assign your own well-deserved name to another.

For once in your life try to exhibit a sliver of creativity. this is surely easier than telling the truth which I would never ask of you, knowing you are incapable of that emotion.

The one photo the GOP does not want anyone to see was snapped at yesterday's NAACP GOP Presidential Candidate Forum. The NAACP invited all 9 Republican candidates to the forum, but only one showed up: Tom Tancredo. All the Democratic Presidential hopefuls showed up for their forum.

The excuses given by the Republican campaigns mostly had to do with scheduling conflicts--just too busy to make it.

The resulting photo of Tancredo--standing on a stage of empty podiums sums up the Republican party's commitment to civil rights in America: the only Republican interested is the guy who's terrified of Mexicans.

And not a single newspaper or TV station carried it.
They just didn't think it was important that 8 out of 9 republican Presidential candidates were "no shows" for a debate at the NAACP. NOW, if it had been DEms -- front page on every paper.

here's the photo -- Tancredo and 8 empty podiums. Hilarious.

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/07/frameshop-a-p-1.html

""Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992"

Does anyone else see an insult in there? I guess you have to be KOZ/trotsky/ignorant rightwingnut coward to see that.

Timothy Gatto, I am Trustee for 2 young men who have served multiple tours now and I think we need to get Webb-Hagel revived. It just needed 3 more votes to get to 60.

At least there is some entertainment value in the KOZ/trotsky/Libs posts. Che is just long and boring and always off-topic.

The resident twin clowns respond in their usual way. zouk obsession and attach any good news to clinton. deny bush anything good.

hey ace, when did the terror attacks start?
"Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992"

Still the same MO : Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

"SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea seemed ready Friday to take a first step toward scaling back its nuclear weapons program, perhaps this weekend, as U.N. inspectors prepared to monitor the shutdown of its sole operating atomic reactor don't look now - good news. how far buried back in the NYT do you think this will be?"

Thanks for providing me with yet another example of why the current Bush Doctrine of "Invade First, Do The Hard Work Later" is so brain-dead. What, will NK no longer be a part of that there nasty "Axis of Evil?" We won't be able to attack them? I can see tears forming in Dick Cheney's eyes.

with any luck, the $300m will be laundered in a Dubai casino and will not be used to make a tactical nuke.

I just read about the story of a young Army Sergeant by the name of Erik Botta. Botta is 26 years old and hails from Port St. Lucie. Erik is like most 1st generation Americans, he wants to work hard and make something of himself.

But young Sergeant Botta, an Army reservist, has a slight problem. It seems as if every time that he gets comfortable and gets moving on all eight cylinders, he gets sent to Iraq. Sure, many guys have been sent to Iraq. They have to make due, right? Well this would be true for most, but Botta is getting tired of it, after all he has served in Afghanistan and Iraq on four other tours, this will be his fifth!

Come on, enough is enough! How many times can a guy kiss his wife and kids goodbye and go to a foreign land and kill people? What's that done for his marriage? What's that done to his head? Would you feel comfortable being around a guy that spent five tours in a combat zone in less than six years? I'm a retired Army Sergeant myself, and I'll tell you point blank, I wouldn't. He could flashback and make a grab at someone's throat at the slightest provocation! Of course I'm exaggerating here, and I don't believe that Erik would do any such thing, but really, what's it done to his head? Enough is enough. You can't tell someone to do five hardship tours back to back. Think of this also, this guy is a Reservist! He's not even on active duty!

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thieves have stolen nearly $300 million US dollars from a bank in Baghdad, police and a bank official said Thursday, in what was the biggest theft in Iraq's history.

We have also learned to scroll past anything labeled zouk, trotsky, or any message containing the word 'Libs' because they are all pathetic drivel.

Study: Teen Birth Rate Hits Record Low Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low

Posted by: blame bush | July 13, 2007 12:39 PM

Great news. Too bad for you the decline started in 1992.

Numerous military and diplomatic analysts argue that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would in fact "prevent Iraq's multiple sectarian conflicts from spreading beyond its borders and gives Iraq and its neighbors the right incentive to help resolve Iraq's internal conflicts."

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has regularly touted his leadership in the wake of 9/11 as one of his major selling points. A host of 9/11 responders have alleged, however, that Giuliani provided them with poor radios, misled them into working amidst toxic fumes, and most recently, hastily cleared out the rubble before bodies were all recovered.

Six weeks after 9/11, Giuliani abandoned efforts to recover remaining bodies and buckled to pressure from developers eager to "scoop" the rubble:

The fact is that the Mayor's switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment.

Yesterday, Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) -- the nation's largest firefighters organization, consisting of 280,000 members -- assailed Giuliani, detailing how the mayor ditched body-recovery efforts only 24 hours after recovering the $230 million in gold. "He found the gold on October 31, and on November 1 is when he issued the order to remove the firefighters from their recovery mode."

Mark -- For what it's worth, I heartily agree that, as my preferred presidential candidate has put it, we need to be as careful in the way we leave Iraq as we were reckless going in. Without a doubt, some sort of residual containment force will have to be a part of such a careful withdrawal. Whether that's stationed in the North, or just over the horizon, I'm not sure. But presumably changing the mission to that degree would allow for a substantial reduction in forces in the near future -- which I think folks of all political stripes are in favor of.

Oh, and as to the Webb-Hagel act -- pretty sad to see all these republicans who have been lauded by the press for breaking with the WH vote against such a sensible piece of legislation written by two guys with legitimate expertise. Very sad.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea seemed ready Friday to take a first step toward scaling back its nuclear weapons program, perhaps this weekend, as U.N. inspectors prepared to monitor the shutdown of its sole operating atomic reactor

don't look now - good news. how far buried back in the NYT do you think this will be?

Scott from PacNW, writes
"Please stay off topic. And use lots of ad hominem attacks, too. Thanks a bunch"

Normally I would agree with you. But the Governor Line is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Futile argument with neocons is much more fun.

Trotsky: you say "I must guess that you advocate not invading under any circumstance and retreating whenever the option presents itself, according to your own Lib logic."

My point was that you seem to advocate invading under any circumstance/reason/trumped up charge no matter how slight, no matter how ephemeral. Given time, Iraq might iron out its own problems. Might not. Anyone who says they have the answer is an idiot. Anyone who says that more will die if we stay than if we go is also an idiot. Certainly whoever thought invading Iraq would be quick and easy (and there were plenty of people) was an idiot. Agreed?

Let me put it another way. Kerry indicated that if RFK or HH or McGovern had been elected President in the '60's that we would still have left Vietnam but that there would be a lot fewer names on the Vietnam Wall. Agreed?

If your buddy Bush-Cheney had been elected President in 1960 I have little doubt we'd all be dead by now. Agreed?

ahem, Scott....we regulars at the Fix are in the habit of discussing whatever it is we feel like, despite policing efforts by newbies and random attacks by annoying anonymous posters. Over time, we have learned to scroll past anything from che, as it continues to be a veritable free-for-all here on a daily basis, and we like it like that.

Oh I keep forgetting that every single person that means to do us harm is just sitting in Afghanistan waiting for enough americans to arrive so they can give up.

Hey i got a great idea, let's go to afghanistan and kill some of those bad guys. why didn't anyone think of this before?

That should read "No SUCCESSFUL laws passed here since 1/20."

bsimon, Colin, JimD and Judge all had wise words today. I agree with bsimon and JimD [what, yet again?] that we should not simply walk away.

Attempting the diplomatic initiative, however late, is better than not attempting it. Troop redeployment, if the Kurdish north is still an option, makes sense. Everybody except the west hates the Kurds so we should not abandon them to their decidedly non-western neighbors. The Kurds like us better than they like their neighbors, in return.

When we held Saddam at bay by air power for 12 years he was unable to kill in Mosul and Basra, but ruled the central provinces with utter brutality. If the Saudis and Iranians can agree not to squeeze each other too hard, even by proxy, tension will be reduced in the central provinces, and the vacuum we leave there may be better for the locals than the hellish dictator we first engaged. Otherwise, they may kill each other. I do not want my guys refereeing that.

The south seems lost in its own intra-shiite tribalism. I have no clue.

A smaller force, deployed in the north, could train, could do counter-insurgency work, could help defend the northern pipeline, and could help secure the Syrian and northern Iranian borders. But I do not know if our window of opportunity is still open.

B-H resolves our domestic bickering and is better than our current policy. Add in Biden's recognition of ethnic autonomy and its a start. bsimon remembers when I feared that once the Rs adopted B-H the Ds would reject it. That fear looks less like skepticism and more like politics-as-usual now.

Quite aside from our exit strategy from Iraq and long term goals in the Middle East, how is it possible that Webb-Hagel did not get 60 votes? Do these guys just want to destroy the Army and the Marines?

Please stay off topic. And use lots of ad hominem attacks, too. Thanks a bunch

We the zany Libs of the fix blog, do hereby swear to conduct battle with the evil Zouk by any means necessary. since we have very limited intellectual ability and have no scientific data to support our views, we will be forced to resort to insults, slander, lies, posting under fake names, using the enemies name, and general mayhem. We refuse to stay on topic or rebutt any challenges to our position.

If any allies of the evil zouk emerge. we will promptly call them zouk as well and include them in our jihad. We will support any Lib position, no matter how demonic and will ignore any good news concerning Republicans.

this is our cause and we take to it gladly, considering we have no other traditional activites to keep us busy, such as gainful employment, hobbies or personal relationships.

Our favorite tactic will be to cut and paste from every Lib blog we can find. We also like to selectively change words to zouk's statements and repost them. this takes no creativity or intelligence so don't be too impressed. We just think it is amusing and fun to do.

to the ramparts!

Jeez, how many of us are on here today?

"Yet no attacks here since 9/11."

BZZT!!

That should read "No SUCCESSFUL attacks here since 9/11." And apparently enough threats to give Chertoff a gutache.

Even Tricky Dick said that it was only a matter of time before we were attacked again. Doesn't his whole "1% doctrine" refute the claim that "we fight them there to keep them from coming here"?

Go out and get a real job for a change Howie. You make me puke.

Posted by: | July 13, 2007 10:05 AM

His shrink must have a field day with this nut who spends his entire pathetic life on this board.

Posted by: | July 13, 2007 04:19 PM

Loudumb, I see you have accepted your fate and taken to your new name. that is a sign there is hope for you. accepting the truth and your own limitations is the path to wisdom.

Too bad about that one attack since 9/10, though.

- Since Bush announced his surge in January, violence has skyrocketed. Close to 600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since January. Military assessments suggest that "the U.S. military's plan to secure Baghdad against a rising insurgency is falling far short of its goal." A recent bombing killed over 150 in Baghdad, "one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."

- The war in Iraq has already destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world. "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks."

- The U.S. has already "lost influence" in the region. In a poll of 18 countries, the percentage of "saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world" dropped 11 points from two years ago, down to just 29 percent. Just 17 percent believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

we fight them there so they don't come here

Yet no attacks here since 9/11.

Hi everyone, I'm so stupid I think posts making fun of me = posts "engaging" me. I really am stupid, huh?

'trotsky: why do you and other rightwingnuts insist on capitalizing the L in libs? There is no "Lib" party.'

that's one of the many way you can recognize zouk/trotsky/anon wingnut is the same person. actually there are several very clear 'signatures' that give it away -- some of them being a dozen or regular obsessions, like Harry Reid, climate change, and bill clinton. His shrink must have a field day with this nut who spends his entire pathetic life on this board.

You presume I am a Dem because I criticize Bush - bsimon

no after your reasoned and logical response I must conclude that you are not a Dem.

colin, I am not using it as a benchmark, I am using it as a goal. After all, this is a war of attrition. we need to kill them all or leave them with no will to fight on. this is how you win a war textbook style. do you think a negotiated peace is an option? that is the other possible outcome.

Perhaps we could agree to cover all our women. Or stone adulterers. would that work for you?

trotsky asks a host of odd questions
"how will you convice your enemy to remain there to be killed? what if they hide in Iraq or Pakistan? What if most of our enemy is now depolyed in Iraq? will they do as you wish?"

Why would I try to convince the enemy to stay in Iraq? Is it your theory that the enemy will 'stay' in Iraq only if we stay there as well? Here's a news flash: al Qaida has been growing for the last six years, according to the CIA, and they're not based in Iraq - aQ in Iraq is a splinter group, not the real deal. No, the real al Qaida is primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they have more volunteers, more money and more training camps than ever. In fact, the head of the Dept of Homeland Security has a 'gut feeling' that we'll be attacked this summer. Doesn't that imply to you that the terrorists, in fact, will NOT stay in Iraq even if we do? It seems like they're still interested in attacking the US homeland - whether our troops are deployed overseas or not. In fact, many experts argue that our presence overseas actually inspires more volunteers for aQ and similar organizations. Anyone with a functioning brain can see that the argument that "we fight them there so they don't come here" has been illogical bunk since it was first uttered. Only a fool would state or believe such an idea.

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

One more just for fun. I'll use your name to make it even funnier.

Hi, I'm a drooling moron!

Posted by: Loudumb | July 13, 2007 04:03 PM

why, yes, you are and now the proof is in.

I'm not the one calling Iraq a civil war my friend. That would be "liberals" like Colin Powell, Brett Scowcroft, as well as CIA National Intelligence Estimates. Moreover, the military commanders have conceded, in testimony in front of Congress, that the VAST majority of confrontations result from insurgent factions within Iraq rather than from any outside sources. You know, the same military commanders that have also conceded, again and again and again, that there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq.

Ultimately, it's this last point that you just seem unwilling to grasp. Democrats don't advocate surrender because WE ALREADY WON THE WAR. The US military accomplished that goal a long time ago. Unfortunately for all of us, the military isn't capable of reconciling rival religious and political sects through any kind of new military strategy. That would take competent diplomacy, which is well beyond this utterly incompetent administration.

Oh, and your focus on the number if insurgents killed is ridiculous. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the military knows that's a useless benchmark when you're fight insurgents. I've listened to military commanders say as much during live testimony, right before Bush then mentions the casualty numbers in a speech. Ridiculous.

one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."

i am not sure since i just make this stuff up.

destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world

because the world was so peaceful before that with no known incidents

In a poll of 18 countries

we so desperatly need to be liked - just like clinton

trotsky writes
"the leaders of your party are advocating immediate and complete surrender."

There's your mistake. You presume I am a Dem because I criticize Bush. Your presumption is incorrect.

Frankly, as I just said, I think immediate withdrawl is a bad idea. Its unclear whether immediate withdrawl would be not quite as bad, equally as bad or worse than staying the course, but clearly those are the two worst options, speaking broadly. Escalating the conflict by bombing Iran would trump those options, as 'worst course of action'.

No, the better plan of action is to find a way to stablize Iraq by convincing other players that they're better off helping than sitting on the sidelines. The problem is we've pissed off enough countries in the world, that people aren't quite ready to help us out at this point. One possible option could be to threaten immediate withdrawl & see how many countries will start to help stabilize the region in order to keep us there.

We likely won't ever find a good solution though, because domestic political concerns are forcing both parties to try to find a way to blame the other for what will likely be our failure in Iraq. I think Bush vetoed the last Iraq bill primarily in order to tie the Dems hands - either fund the war or take responsibility for forcing an unplanned withdrawl. Dems are still smarting from taking the blame on Vietnam, and don't want to suffer the same fate in Iraq. Instead, they're trying to force Repubs to stand by Bush & get slaughtered in 08 as a result. The Repubs, of course, are all trying to find out how to please their constituants by distancing themselves from Bush without advocating a Dem plan. You'd think this kind of environment would foster the kind of coalition building that will it will take to come up with a bipartisan solution, but sadly both sides instead seek to win the next election, consequences in Iraq be damned.

Fools, the lot of 'em.

Should we have invaded all of Southeast Asia?

Judge, are you even slower than loudumb? I clearly explained that invading every country was not proper, that is was a matter of cost/benefit, allies, economics, etc. Are you dense or silly? We promised the S vietnamese financial support and the Dem congress pulled it, despite begging from Ford. the millions of boat people and other displaced, dead and tortured freinds are your (Democrats) legacy for that decision - a cowardly political tactic. It was only money. why do you think no one trusts your party to fight a war - jimmy carter not helping much and "I tried" clinton feebly chiming in.

I must guess that you advocate not invading under any circumstance and retreating whenever the option presents itself, according to your own Lib logic.

Hi, I'm a drooling moron!

- Since Bush announced his surge in January, violence has skyrocketed. Close to 600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since January. Military assessments suggest that "the U.S. military's plan to secure Baghdad against a rising insurgency is falling far short of its goal." A recent bombing killed over 150 in Baghdad, "one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion."

- The war in Iraq has already destabilized the Middle East and exported terrorism throughout the world. "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks."

- The U.S. has already "lost influence" in the region. In a poll of 18 countries, the percentage of "saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world" dropped 11 points from two years ago, down to just 29 percent. Just 17 percent believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

Yet we still get:

right, numbnuts, I'm going to engage a poster who uses a name like Loudumb. You're even dumber than you look.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:47 PM

than i look? Can you see me now? do I look as dumb as you seem?

I advocated staying in Afghanistan and fighting the people that attacked us on 9/11

the leaders of your party are advocating immediate and complete surrender.

how will you convice your enemy to remain there to be killed? what if they hide in Iraq or Pakistan? What if most of our enemy is now depolyed in Iraq? will they do as you wish?

i don't imagine Bush is turning down any coalition partners who are willing to help. do you know any? this is just silly to suggest this is a new and great idea that will produce results. Are you talking about buddying up with Iran and syria. good luck with that.

"ever heard of the killing fields"

Yep, they were (and still are) in Cambodia, not South Vietnam. Another example (along with Laos) of regional instability caused by a US-led war. Should we have invaded all of Southeast Asia? Hey, the Soviets killed off millions of their own citizens during Stalin. And Kruschev was pretty darn threatening when he said "We will bury you." I guess we should've invaded them as well. Of course, we'd all be dead now thanks to the exchange of nuclear weapons. BUT, we'd have the moral high ground (glowing faintly from residual radioactivity) along with the shiny badge of The World's Policeman sitting on all our collective graves.

"Ace - ever heard of the killing fields. It was a direct result of Libs in America pulling the plug on support for S vietnam."
----------------
Not exactly. The "killing fields" were NOT in Viet Nam but in Cambodia, a different country, one to which we had no historical commitment. The Ho Chi Minh government in Hanoi was not the Kmer Rouge. When McGovern and Goldwater tried to get us to intervene against the Kmer Rouge, they were voted down by both the parties they had recently led, because the country was tired from the long effort in Viet Nam.
----------------

Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out."

Are you really disputing this still?
1942 - conquest of N Africa
1943 - invasion of Italy, germany's ally.

the Polish frontier was crossed in January of '44. April '44 - entered Romania and Slovakia,
September '44 entered Hungary, Soviet-Hungarian Armistice in October '44.

right, numbnuts, I'm going to engage a poster who uses a name like Loudumb. You're even dumber than you look.

Trotsky falls back on a strawman when he asks
"bsimon, is the war working? - as opposed to giving up and going home. how would that work?"

I did not and do not advocate 'giving up and going home'. I advocated staying in Afghanistan and fighting the people that attacked us on 9/11 - a job that still remains undone & will need to be done before this thing is 'over.' Regarding Iraq, because we cannot now go back and undo the collossal mistake of invading in the first place, I have long been in favor of doing the unthinkable: building a coalition via diplomatic efforts to get others involved in the conflict there so that 1) its not seen as a US v Islam battle and 2) we don't bear the entire burden of democratizing Iraq (if that's even possible anymore). In other words, I've been arguing for Baker-Hamilton since before the ISG delivered their report.

Regarding Trotsky's claim that
"this decision can't be made in a vacuum with domestic American elections as the driving force, as the Libs have tried to frame it."

On that I agree. I think it was foolish and shortsighted for the GOP to force Dems to vote for the war in 2002 based on the domestic political calendar, much like now it is foolish for Dems to inflict revenge on the GOP with the inverse. In neither case did/will the best policy for the US be the outcome of such politicking.

Prediction - I don't expect any more than a one liner replete with insults from a numbnuts like you. Proceed

Response -
Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 13, 2007 03:37 PM

Translation - I am beaten and withdraw. I have no innate intelligence with which to engage like this. I prefer lobbing stupid one liner insults like I do every day. Just leave me alone.

Loudumb: you are beyond stupid -- this will be my last post in response to any of your drivel.

Are two simultanously concepts too much for your little Lib brain? Maybe you could take some nuance lessons from that flunky John Kerry. Or keep chanting "no blood for oil" if that works for you simpleton.

"Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out."
--------------------------------------
Not exactly. There were no Soviet troops, other than POWs, west of the Soviet Union until the Red Army turned the tide of battle with the Nazis on the Eastern Front, during 1943. The Czech-Soviet Treaty was signed at the end of '43 and the Polish frontier was crossed in January of '44. April '44 - entered Romania and Slovakia,
September '44 entered Hungary, Soviet-Hungarian Armistice in October '44.
-----------------------------------------
What is the parallel to Iraq, again? I suppose 170 Red Army Divisions with 8000 tanks could open an Eastern Front for us. What a cool war game that would be.

Ace - ever heard of the killing fields. It was a direct result of Libs in America pulling the plug on support for S vietnam. those were our friends and allies left behind to fend for themselves, a heinous act you seem to wish to repeat in Iraq.

and the domino theory in Asia actually did stall communist agresssion during that time, so no the result was not the same. did you flunk history too? I don't expect any more than a one liner replete with insults from a numbnuts like you. Proceed

So trotsky, is it despots or natural resources we care about? you seem confused.

Trotsky: you are really stupid. (Now there's a news flash).

We lost close to 60,000 people in Vietnam, so it's hard to say we just "gave up and went home." And after losing all those people, the end result was what we would have gotten had we not lost A SINGLE ONE.

you know you Libs have had this explained so many times I am beginning to think you are dense beyond repair.

But since I am so patient and understanding of your inability to process facts, I will try again.

colin it can't be a civil war if outsiders are doing all the agitating and sending in supplies. this old canard has been severly discredited and should be beneath you. It is an old trick of Libs to try to change the vernacular and admit new words to skew the debate - like pro choice instead of pro abortion. Like civil war instead of proxy war around civilians.

the kicking out of inspectors would have been the usual cat and mouse game as before. He would have eventually discovered that the UN and Euroope didn't have the stomach to follow through on any real effective sanctions and since the US never went to war, he would have continued the game. he seemed to not believe we would ever invade, even hiding from the fact that he didn't have what we were looking for, which would have averted the invasion.

N Korea sits on no vital resources, they may already have a short range nuke and can flood s Korea and hit the capital with a million troops in about an hour. I presume the s Koreans prefer the status quo and the cost/benefit has not much benefit. so yes, the war is about oil - a necessary commodity for the world's eceonomy. the same reason we don't go into Africa much. Iran and Syria are teetering on their own populations overthrowing them without intervention. they can't support their own economies and rely on the West for their income. From a military point of view, Iran is large and the terrain is difficult. they may crumble soon just the CCCP did. We can't invade everyone at once.

so as I said up there^, you use diplomacy, economics ansd warfare according to a cost/benefit analysis and also what other options you have and what your allies are willing to do. diplomacy was exhausted in Iraq. It may be soon with Iran although after Leibermans unanimous vote to warn Iran, they seem to be paying more attention today.

I understand the psychology of the region is different from the west. they understand force and pain. Let's show it to them.

Blarg, there are almost daily reports of the supplies and people who orginate from Iran and Syria. did you miss them all by only reading the NYT? the Senate seems to have noticed as well as the BBC. I persoanlly wouldn't invade either country. We are much better at airstrikes. Maybe that's why a third carrier group is headed that way. there are reports of at least three known terror training camps in Iran. I have no objection to bombing them. Be prepared for skyrocketing gas prices immediately afterwards as Iran tries to close the straights.

then what will the enviro demogouges whine about?

The anonymous poster disparaging Senator Johnson is repulsive. The man suffered a life threatening illness but has since begun to recuperate, slowly but surely. B/c he hasn't been able to work OR raise money -- but will be healthy enough to work in the near future -- his COLLEAGUES have raised money on his behalf so that lack of money won't be the deciding factor regarding whether he runs again.

Seriously, that's something that you think speeks poorly of either Senator Johnson or his Colleagues? If so, you are out of your mind.

Yet, just a few days after the murderous rampage in Gaza that saw Hamas thugs butchering the opposition in the streets and tossing victims off tall buildings, there's Carter leaping to their defense. I would have hoped that long before this, Rosalynn would have found a nice little rest home for this senior, senile, citizen.

I do wish that when Carter finally goes to that big peanut farm in the sky, we might be spared all the predictable pomp and ceremony, the outrageous hyperbole and fulsome tributes, which will be lavished on him. If his send-off were left to me, I would simply point out that the man somehow managed to go from being the worst president in my lifetime to being the worst ex-president in American history.

Trotsky (aka KOZ) -- any basis in fact for your last post? In point of fact, when we got into Iraq we found out that Sadaam had been so weakened even by the flawed sanctions that existed that he wasn't even in control of 1/3 of the country. There's zero evidence supporting the proposition that he had enough power to kick inspectors out again.

Regardless, you have never explained - despite my having asked you directly several times - why Iraq posed the most significant threat to the US when we invaded. Sadaam wasn't support radical islam like our allies Saudia Arabia. He didn't present anywhere near as serious a threat as N. Korea or Iran. Yet we've committed huge amounts of treasure and lives to prosecuting what has essentially become a civil war. Can you explain to me how exactly that made any sense then or makes any sense now?

WASHINGTON - Ailing Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota has raised more this year than he did during the same period six years ago, even though he hasn't set foot in the Senate since suffering a life-threatening brain hemorrhage in December

too sick to vote or work, just fine for raising money. the Dem mantra.

Okay, so we "drain the swamp" by "killing the enemy". And according to you, the enemy includes Syria and Iran. So is the solution to invade those countries and kill people there? Otherwise, we aren't really killing the enemy, just the enemies' proxies.

Your insistence that we're at war with Syria and Iran is bizarre; as far as I know, even President Bush doesn't claim that. If you mean that we need to intimidate those countries with a decisive victory in Iraq, I suppose that makes some sense. But if we're already at war with them, and they're already the enemy, nothing we're doing in Iraq is helping at all. If we're at war with those countries, we need to be openly at war with them. We're a lot better at open war than fighting insurgencies, after all. Plus, it would be a good chance to free these nations from despots. Don't the Iranians deserve it as much as the Germans and "Japs"?

I don't see how your arguments for staying in Iraq don't imply that we should invade Iran. So should we? And if not, why not?

trotsky: why do you and other rightwingnuts insist on capitalizing the L in libs? There is no "Lib" party.

bsimon - you make a mistake that points out your reliance on government, like all Libs. you assume that just becuase you wish it and government is involved that it will turn out how the smart Libs planned. It doesn't, especially in war.

There are essentially two options you present - 1 fight the enemy until he is dead or 2. ignore the enemy and hope for the best. you advocate strategy #2 and claim that if we had left them alone, they would still be small, weak and over there. the indications can not be proven but the momentum was certainly toward a more agressive enemy, not a less so one.
we can't say whether our offensive actions lead to more or less enemy personel. what we can say without much doubt, is that this enemy was prepared to attack us at the opportunities it chose to set. the invasion of Iraq changed that equation to be that they must defend themselves at the point of combat we choose.

Arguing about whether there are more or less is simply not a soluable issue. the numbers are totally unknowm and the causal relationship is speculative.

What we can be sure of is that there are killers over there who wish to kill americans, wherever they may be. We make it a matter of policy to prefer volunteer professional soldiers to die rather than moms and kids on subways. so far this approach has succeeded in this goal. did you have a different goal in mind - like simply winning an election based on ignorance and propoganda. based on calling our soldiers names?

bsimon, is the war working? - as opposed to giving up and going home. how would that work? this decision can't be made in a vacuum with domestic American elections as the driving force, as the Libs have tried to frame it.

I know what the political junkies are looking at the Presidential race hardest, as we will have a new one and 2 legite primaries are going on. However, I am excited about the elections happening in my home state of North Carolina. People in general have received NC as a Republican state for Presidential races, democratic for governor's races and purple for senator races. This, however, may not all be so this year. Liddy Dole is running again, and she is in great shape for re-election. As for the Presidential election, it cannot be automatically assumed that NC goes Republican in 08. It will depend on who the Presidential candidates are. Guiliani, for example, likely wouldn't be well received here. As for NC always voting in democratic governors, that may not be the case this year either. If Mike Easley were up for re-election, it would be gold. Easley is out the door, and a democratic primary b/t Lt. Gov. Perdue and state treasurer Richard Moore is turning into a barns burner. In a recent survey, Perdue leads Moore 34%-30%, and st. senator Bill Faison has 4%. This leaves 32% of democratic voters undecided. On the Republican side, Bill Graham is the obvious nominee. He has a great statewide organization, money and an outsider's messege of fighting the gas tax, car tax and protecting private property rights. Graham will make an excellent candidate with the right messege to win this election. Plus, conservative Democrats in NC will have trouble voting for a woman governor. So if Perdue wins a tough nomination over Moore, which as a conservative I'm hoping for, Graham will likely march to the governor's mansion taking it back for the Republican's. However, if Moore wins the dem. nomination against Perdue, it will be a very close election when he faces Graham in the general. Graham has a great shot at beating him, but in the general, but it would be much tougher than would defeating Perdue. I have high expectations for Republican's in NC. I believe that the election of 08' will be a "Black" day for NC Democrats. So NC Dems., prepare to be "Nifonged".

I'd like to point out that many posts here are waaaay off topic.

There is no shortage of Iraq articles to post on. Knock yourselves out.