http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

1) Polls are a fraud in most cases,a fabrication to influence politics and businesses,that's why Murdoch paid 5.6 billion for the Dow Jones,etc., to manipulate and re-direct the '08 elections towards Bloomberg,Giuliani,Clinton and Schumer/Emanuel/Lieberman,etc.,and stick his Bloomberg team as VP no matter who
the candidates are...

2) the fact is that Bloomberg,Schumer,Emanuel and Chertoff,Stuart Levey and Bolten,Kaplan,Kellner and Wurmser in the White House as well as the lady of Giuliani,Judith,the top AIPAC girl in NYC,
ARE THE SAME TEAM AND THE SAME GOAL :A NEOCON CONTROLLED AMERICA,that's why we need a christian in the A.G.'s office ,and because 80% of the Taxpayers in the USA are christian, lets be practical and realistic,if a christian goes to the Knesset in TelAviv and ask them to be their top A.G.,what do you think they would say? , God asks us to be good, not stupid !!!

3)none,Giuliani or Romney or F.Thompson ever served in the Military,and they push for more war !,shame on the liars !,America needs a total upgrade, a tune up with Diplomacy,new Energy solutions and new workforce incentives,new healthy foods and new vision,now !

Wow the Daily Kos losers have really overrun this place. Where's Ned Lamont these days?

U.S. Bomb Kills 3 British Soldiers

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- A bomb apparently dropped by an American fighter jet called in for air support killed three British soldiers in southern Afghanistan, officials said Friday. Two soldiers were gravely wounded.

clark

The big news today is yesterday's news that the American intelligence community is pessimistic about Iraq. USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all lead with the three-and-a-half-page downer that is the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. The Washington Post leads with Republican Sen. John Warner's call for President Bush to start bringing troops home, mentioning the NIE report in the first line. The Los Angeles Times goes with the Iraqi prime minister's response to pressure from U.S. politicians: Back off. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tells the U.S. that Iraq can "find friends elsewhere" if the U.S. doesn't like the way he is running the country, reports the LAT.
The NIE report predicts that the Iraqi government will grow yet "more precarious" in the coming months. And the report should know, since its lack of confidence contributes to that precariousness. USAT tells readers in the story's lede that the report concludes the "Iraqi government's inability to stop sectarian violence and stabilize the country may waste military gains" and the Times sums up by saying that the report finds a "paralyzed Iraqi government unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year."
USAT contains this assertion about halfway down: "The mission of U.S. troops is to counter insurgents and stabilize the country." TP thinks he remembers something about democracy or weapons of mass destruction. Then again, that was a long time ago.

lylepink: anyone to the left of Benito Mussolini is a 'lib' in 'Trotsky's' eyes.

JD, I think Roo is an Ausi expat and is undoubtably feminist. For that, we an thank God Almighty. Overly liberal abortion laws, coupled wih her selfish and self centered lifestyle, and the tastes of decent men, prevent her from reproducing and inflicting upon the world additonal loosers like her.

JD, I think Roo is an Ausi expat an is undoubtably feminist. For tha, we an hank God Almighty. Overly liberal abortion laws, couled wih her selfish and self centered lifestyle prevent her from reproducing and inflicting upon the world additonal loosers like her.

LP - better than "lylepink" becasue you're beginning to sund like a broekn record, the actual delta, when averaged between the vaious polls, shows almost a 50% drop in Clinton's numbers over the past three months. Also, the difference between her and Obama and Edwards is 8% and narrowing. One thing you need to cnsider before jumping on the Clinton bandwagon is that wagon is hauling a full load of manure. Hillary has a lot of baggage and it is going to come out every day during any election campaign. I, and I am a Democrat, will bring it up again and again and again and wil encourage other Democrats to do the same. Hillary will win he Presidency over my dead body. I will work night and day to se her defeated, give anything, carry any burden. She is the enemy. She owns parts of firm that outsourced jobs for engineers, she works to increase H1-B visas, she trades American jobs for money.... and there are millions of us who will see to it that she suffers for that mistake every day. Believe me when I tell you this, Hillary CLinton has zero chance of becoming president.

Bokono -
My preferences, in order, Edwards, Obama, Gore, Thompson, Biden, Gulianni, McCain (not because I agree with him, I don't, but at least I trust him - actually trust him more than I do anyone else but Edwards). Degree of policy agreement with Edwards: 90%+, Gore: 70%, Obama: 70%, Thompson: 60%, Gulianni: 50%, McCain: 35%. Other than these guys, I vote third party.

Blarg: I posted the latest poll availabe from Iowa a few minutes ago. I have been going over all comments and posting responses. Been busy most of the day and just awhile ago had a chance to read what is going on here.

As the presidential debates heat up and tensions increase, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today. Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each other and to the general public. As one of the nations that has pledge to fulfill the goals of the Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elminiation of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substanital action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the World Bank, only 19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leager who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Trosky: lylepink is not a "lib".

A new poll by NewsMax/Zogby in Iowa released 22 Aug. has Hillary 30%--Obama 23%-- Edwards 19%--. Hey!! Hey!! Folks, I may not be as crazy as some of you may think.

01:10PM Post: This is nothing new from the poster you mentioned, others have called him/her on different things and name calling begins. I have came to the point I just scroll past the comments and go back and read them when I find they are not from this poster. Same as for che.

JD--Yeah, I forgot about the immigration shebang. That did not go over too well.

I have to disagree on the payback aspect but that is only because I think there are high crimes and (few) misdemeanors about.

Unfortunately winning seems more important than accountability and actually serving the country--particularly to Republicans but certainly to Democrats as well--and for all the clamoring about the "ways of Washington," Joe Q. Public carefully listens to and toes the party line.

I am not either of those nationalities, by the way, but in the immortal words of Eddie Izzard: "Americans say 'erbs' and the British pronounce it 'herbs'--because it's got a f-ing 'H' in it."

Roo, our Congress (I'm assuming you're from England or Australia because you spell it 'realise'...probably Aussie based on your user name...) has such low approval ratings because:

1) the Dems ran on getting us out of Iraq - their constituency has seen roughly zero progress so far (all the 'sense of the senate' resolutions aside). Guess it's harder to win a war than they thought; either that, or they don't have the cojones to cut off the funding to the troops. Their base knows they could end this war tomorrow if they'd be willing to put their money where their mouth was.

2) the GOP feels (rightly so) that the Dem leadership is playing get-even by hounding W with investigation after investigation, as payback for what the GOP did to Clinton.

So who's left to be happy with Congress? I doubt the filibusters have much to do with it, and certainly the grandstanding has been as much on the Dem side as the GOP side (remember their bringing in cots and beds a few weeks ago?). The Dem filibusters were over judicial nominations, something not traditionally done.

Frankly, the less congress does, the happier I'll be. Most of the laws they would consider (immigration 'reform'/amnesty, raising taxes on my beloved cigars, etc) are bad ideas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 23, 2007 05:43 PM

"don't mischaracterize and lie about my positions Ignorant one. for once explain yours in your own words."

gee, zouk, it seems all you ever do is mischaracterize the positions of people you don't agree with

proudtobeGOP--You realise that the reason why Congress' approval is so low is directly attributable to two reasons:

1) Their seeming impotence in getting rid of the stupendously incompetent Gonzales and producing results--getting people fired for almost-as-crass incompetence and malice--with their other investigations.

2) GOP filibustering more than Democrats ever did (although this is not being publicised.)

Based on what you said last year, I am sure you would happily remove the filibuster problem, though.

MikeB--Wow, your wife must really feel appreciated. Or, wait, is she allowed to think and feel independently?

6:35, those results are from the May poll. Those questions weren't asked in August. I don't know why everyone is having so much trouble with this; the date of the poll is at the top of the results page.

MikeB, that poll didn't have a majority of voters supporting anyone:
5. If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)
John Edwards 23%
Barack Obama 22%
Hillary Clinton 21%
Bill Richardson 14%
Joseph Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 13%

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are basically tied. The poll has a margin of error of 4%.

I like Edwards just fine, MikeB. I would be happy to see him get the nomination.

So MikeB, would you vote for Giuliani or Edwards? Giuliani or Obama? curious...

Must be Bush's fault! - proudtobeGOP | August 23, 2007 03:26 PM

By George! She's got it

the tide has turned - ...you left at a little, and somewhat important other number...a majority of those polled also supported John Edwards as President...and, a clear majority of both Republican's and Democrats said they would vote for him. Next, was Obama! Clinton, with all of her money and all of her organization, was third. Given the nature of attack dog politics and the corporate and special interst money involved, however, what do you think the chances are of the voters actually getting a chance to vote for John Edwards?

Knock it off you people! Zouk is on active duty right now. You can see him everyday in my platoon in the Style section.

"I don't respond to any and all demands by the stooges on this blog. It has nothing to do with being afraid of them. - Zouk"

But zouk does demand that "Libs" respond to his idiotic arguments and "issues" and then stops his feet and screams when no one takes the bait. More rightwingnut hypocrisy.

gawd--trotsky zouk never stops posting. too bad he doesn't have this much zeal for actual fighting.

Iowa Poll [this month] for registered voters:

4. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Republican presidential candidates for 2008? (Republicans only)
Yes 29%
No 51%
Undecided 20%

5. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 54%
No 37%
Undecided 9%

7. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Democratic presidential candidates for 2008? (Democrats only)
Yes 65%
No 19%
Undecided 16%

8. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)
Yes 81%
No 5%
Undecided 14%

Bring up a character from one of my favorite movies and you get dialogue:

Col. Nathan Jessup: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

I don't know why someone posted the May poll of Iowa voters, but the statistic is from the August poll.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_082307.htm

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%

As of last week, 51% of Iowa Republicans want to withdraw all military in the next 6 months. Proud, what do you think about that?

I don't respond to any and all demands by the stooges on this blog. It has nothing to do with being afraid of them. - Zouk

Zouk you truly are pathetic. You're like that areonautical engineer in The Flight of the Phoenix who finally has to admit that all he had ever worked on was model planes.

For you it must be toy soldiers. Otherwise you would have quickly put this to rest.

It has everything to do with you being afraid. Maybe not of the bloggers, but certainly of something. Nobody would put up with the shame of being called out for almost two years and providing such a pathetic defense without having some deeper motivation for not answering.

After all, you could just lie and get it out of the way once and for all. Nobody would ever be the wiser that you've never done anything but take from this country and contributed nothing.

If you can't lie about it, then why is it so difficult to tell the Truth?

"So while it's a surprisingly fair article, it's still not very informative."

Agreed, Blarg, but it's nice to see a conservative acknowledge a few basic facts regarding the reality in Iraq. That someone like Will, who could so easily avoid them by overintellectualizing a tangential issue, now sees why things don't work and will continue not to work, speaks volumes.

Mark - it would help if the Libs in congress passed the military approps and investigated a little less.

Maybe instead of demanding instant defeat, they could express hope for victory. Imagine the audacity of that.

alert the King of Canada.

I do not think that Sen. McCain's candidacy is dead.

I do not think that HRC will be the nominee of the Ds.

I also thought that McCain and Bradley would be the nominees in 2000; so there is no predictive value to my thoughts.

I do think that being Mayor of NYC is a tough job compared with being, say, Governor of Massachusetts or Arkansas or Texas or New Mexico.

I do not find Sen. Biden lacking in personality, but I am much older than those of you who criticize his lack of "charisma".

I do think HRC v. RG would be a walk in the mud.

I hope other candidates beside RG endorse the Newt debate structure.

I think Biden v. McCain would be the most civil campaign I have seen in my lifetime. They actually publicly promised that to each other.

I hope the suggested reforms to the primary-caucus processes are agreed to by the Rs and Ds before 2012.

I hope the Ds and the Rs in the Senate do not refuse to work with each other to fashion something like Baker - Hamilton in the next 3 months. Victory is elusive when one cannot name the enemy or the friend.
One of my two beneficiaries is still there.
The son-in-law of my good friend is going back. The DOD doesn't want to air freight the armored vehicles they need because oceanic shipping is cheaper.

Ship the soldiers; airfreight the vehicles.

Ignorant coward - why did they kick you out of the infantry? cowardice or section 8?

Answer the question.

MikeB - how do you explain the success of the Repubs before fox and Rush? they are only recent on the scene. Reagan won a landlside without them. Newt took over the congress without them.

It would be impossible to examine the Dems before the media since they have been intricately entwined for centuries.

It's not about ME, libs. you all seem to relish the cult of personality so much you ignore any underlying facts completely. all citizens are entitled to an opinion on any number of matters without being an expert on them. Being an expert gives them a sort of advanced credence. Let me assure you I have advanced knowledge of military matters.

My job, income, experience, taste, lifestyle is irrelevant and trying to change the topic is a sign of utter weakness in your position.

Try to defend your positions on the merits for once in your life. don't attack the messenger or muse about his motivations. debate the facts solely on their own. I suspect you don't want to do this because you will lose.

FYI - I don't respond to any and all demands by the stooges on this blog. It has nothing to do with being afraid of them. they do not strike fear in anybody and that is why they are universally considered weak on defense and why they will lose the next election.

I prefer to maintain my anonimity in all regards. head over to a dating site if you want to find things out about people.

"jail the mob" - "... with a more truthful media the Democrats wouldn't stand a chance in electoral politics..." True, the mindless mob is completely dependent upon the MSM. Likewise, however, the Republican agenda is completely dependent upon and directed by it's own MSM - Fox, the WSJ, Limbaugh and other "talk radio".

The liberal MSM has twits, usually women or overly sensative and weapy men who think like women, writing trashy sob stories about illegals leaving their children behind, touting up corporate trash like Clinton, frightening the devil out of people about guns and crime and evil "terrorists". The right has it's own MSM, which features mindless rah-rah stories abut "winning" in Iraq, cutting taxes and still having "it all", the glories of the global economy, etc.

It's all rather mind numbing and every single bit of both agendas are set by a corporate-political cabal of insiders. As far as you or I are concerned, it's all mindless blather, empty promises and staged celebrations. We've known that a long time, at least those of us with half a brain. The surprise to me is that, while you noticed the splinter in your neighbors eye, you didn't even think about the log in your own.

she arrested again and convicted for using a stolen Social Security number to get a job as a cleaning woman at an airport. In lieu of jail time, Arellano was to be deported. Instead she took refuge in a left-wing "church" and began to bellyache about being thrown out again.

Despite living in this country illegally for a decade, Arellano hasn't mastered the most rudimentary English. She doesn't want to assimilate and become a "Mexican-American." She wants to be a Mexican-Mexican living in and off America.

So far, the only thing Arellano has contributed to America is one illegitimate child.

Arellano is part of the advance wave of left-wing, Third World colonization of America. Democrats claim there are "two Americas." If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.

Liberals know they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color.

They can't keep up.

Population expert Nick Eberstadt recently speculated in The Washington Post that a principal reason for America's high fertility rate compared to Europe's is its religiosity. Well, that leaves liberals out.

The Democratic Party is in the fight of its life against a conservative demographic trend. Its only hope is to gerrymander America to make the poorest half of Mexico a state. Only a massive influx of criminals, wards of the state and rioters can save them.

This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons. With Arellano, they get two for the price of one. To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state. At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they're fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.

Karl Rove's only response is: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Arellano can go, and take her kid with her.

War is a game for you Zouk, or a "model" as the private school academics like to say.

You don't have what it takes to handle war and its consequences personally. Which is why you evade answering when you are challenged as to what you have ever done to defend this country, and call those who challenge you on this cowards.

Your failure to answer is itself the signature of a coward. You reap the benefits of all those who have ever served and demean their service when you categorize them as no more than pawns.

You sir, are the ignorant one!

But journalism doesn't thrive on a forced consensus. News conformity is always artificial, a matter of ideological indoctrination, not fact. Indeed, the average newswriter today is a shallow and gullible BA in English, with no knowledge of (or interest in) science, technology, history, economics, international affairs, or politics, nor any practical experience of real human nature. That is why we now have just one single national story line, repeated hundreds of times a day in all the major dailies. It is mental Coca Cola --without the nourishment sugar provides.

It's all very effective; with a more truthful media the Democrats wouldn't stand a chance in electoral politics. The entire American Left owes its existence and power to the Media Mob. And our national dialogue would be saner, better-informed, and more rational. We would have a much healthier world. Until then, a vigorous New Media provide our best hope.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/the_media_mob_1.html

The Big Media are a mob. That should be Politics 101. They are a tiny, unchecked power elite, locked into life-long careers in the remnant of a crumbling monopoly over America's national conversation. Like other unaccountable elites, they are monumentally fickle, self-indulgent, snobbish, vain, vulgar, entitled, incestuous, arrogant, ignorant, unprincipled, hysterical, and demagogic. They sound like a unified chorus for the same reasons that street mobs run as a group -- because by and large, they don't dare to stand alone. Media snobs are always looking over their shoulders to see if they are still singing from the same hymnal as The New York Times. The US media have been one-sidedly Leftist, while piously proclaiming their devotion to impartiality. Thus, they are also institutionally mendacious. Telling the truth is hardly their job. They're just not qualified.

When Karl Rove resigned from his White House job last week, to a chorus of yowling cat-calls from furious news writers around the country, some scribblers were particularly offended by a word Mr. Rove used for his good friends in the media: The word "mob." Rove was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying,

"I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob."
Touché, Karl.

Not just one, but two separate Washington Post staffers split the peaceful summer night with howls of outrage. Eugene Robinson and Monica Hesse tore at Mr. Rove's flesh in two WaPo columns, just for using that little word, "mob."

Their united outrage proved his point: They are a mob. Funny, because the Media Mob commonly describes itself in just those terms: as "sharks" looking for "blood in the water" to start a "feeding frenzy." "What bleeds, leads." Sounds like a classic lynch mob, doesn't it? But the victims aren't supposed to answer back. They must hemorrhage silently, while the drooling newshounds bay at the moon to celebrate yet another kill. Well, Mr. Rove didn't play along this time.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator John Edwards issued a scathing attack on Clinton's remark. But he said there has been "progress in Al-Anbar province."

"Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. "You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning."

Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

open your wallets for this kid:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.boyfolo/index.html

don't mischaracterize and lie about my positions Ignorant one. for once explain yours in your own words.

I said that all wars have causalties and you must compare the cost to the benefits. I understand this is WAY over your head, but it is not what you try to twist it to be.

you are a coward because you don't use a name, you sling insults mindlessly, you copy and paste everything without citation or thought, you hide when confronted and you are a pest. that is why we all ignore you regularly. you clearly have some issues with anger that remain unresolved and seem to have an inordinate amount of time to play around, leading me to believe that your relative worth as a functioning member of society is questionable. you never offer anything of substance or original thought and only serve to flame the site. you avoid any actual issues - suggesting you are not able to concoct any ideas you can't find at your favorite hate sites. In short, you are the crazy Leftist that we all loathe for your ignorance and one-sided view.

Back to ignoring you. don't speak for me coward.

Before anybody labels the post above about the 20-year old getting pregnant as a fantasy, there actually was an article in the Post's Outlook Section last year authored by a DC lawyer who did just that.

Not that she may have had anything to do with what happened. Not even the teensy-weensiest little part in the act.

This was a law school graduate, who totally absolved herself and blamed anyone, but herself.

The ME Generation lives!

"Maybe it's Projection. [The defense mechanism by which one may attempt to resolve an emotional conflict by attributing one's own undesirable impulse or idea to another thus pretending that the subjective is objective. - APA DSM-IV TR]. "

Yep, that was your diagnosis.

So, it has come to this: A 20-year-old Illinois college student is whining because she won't be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn't get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act.

Boy, doesn't that beat all. Bush lied to us, got us into an unnecessary war and now he got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on a tropical beach.

"IC never ceases in his relentless "chickenhawk" designation of zouk." - proudtobeGOP

proudtobeGOP, you should be aware that a number of times last year Zouk callously dismissed as simple statistics those that actually die in wars for us. War is little more than a game for him - as long as he's an observer and not on the playing field.

He doesn't do that anymore, but his disdain for those who do die or are injured in service to this country was disgusting.

He began his Ignorant Coward labeling around that time.

Maybe it's Projection. [The defense mechanism by which one may attempt to resolve an emotional conflict by attributing one's own undesirable impulse or idea to another thus pretending that the subjective is objective. - APA DSM-IV TR].

That would explain his refusal to directly answer any questions about serving this country and calling those who ask him about it, "cowards."

BTW - I'm not the one who calls Zouk a chickenhawk, although I fully agree with it. I reserve that for those in power who have sent our military on a Fool's Errand which is a product of their own fantasies and egos.

WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani's support is broad. Hillary Rodham Clinton's is intense.

Among voters of all parties with an opinion, Clinton is viewed favorably by 55 percent, the lowest of all major candidates, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday. That includes a positive rating by just 19 percent of Republicans and 53 percent of independents -- figures that show the challenges that would await her in a general election where swing voters might be crucial.

Yet the New York senator is viewed favorably by 88 percent of her fellow Democrats, including 38 percent with a very favorable opinion of her -- the highest rating of that intensity for any leading candidate. Such support is good news for her effort to win her party's nomination.

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, is seen favorably by 65 percent of adults of all parties who expressed a view, including 47 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents.

"This poll was of GOP Congressmen, so it may not correlate all that well with likely voters. I'm surprised that Ron Paul came in third...chalk it up to Minnesota I guess." - proudtobeGOP

Let's get clear on this straw poll. It means absolutely nothing. It was last night at one location in Saint Paul [Maybe people mistook Ron Paul for Saint Paul and were being civic minded.] It was a fund raiser for the Minnesota House GOP, not GOP Congressman.

A ticket cost $100 which included a ballot. There is no indication that if you paid $200 that you were given two ballots.

All of the results have been given in percentages; no raw vote counts. Which usually indicates that either it was a flop or they don't want anybody to know how much or how little money they raised (at least until they have to report it officially).

So, we have no idea what a single percentage points equals.

The reality is, is that it was a fund raiser and little more. Time to disregard it and move on.

The WSJ has an interesting article that srarts by covering the Romney v Giuliani debate on who's tougher on immigration, but concludes with this nugget:

"None of these worksite raids has turned up a jihadist to our knowledge, despite being conducted in the name of "homeland security." Given that resources are not unlimited, you'd think that DHS officials, like New York's Finest, could find more productive work than chasing down landscapers and treating honest businessowners as if they were criminals."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118775006576904951.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

couldn't get promoted according to his own schedule which, like a typical Lib, he blamed on everyone else, ignoring his own incompetence.

Maybe if he had spent some time doing his job instead of wasting time on the Internet all day he could have made specialist. they might have overlooked the lack of intelligence. but he clearly still hasn't learned that lesson.

Guiliani's media team will most likely focus some effort on youtube and the internet? It has been so crucial to establish the image of the candidates and Guiliani could use some serious face time in his favor.

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted May 18-20, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_052307.htm

don't count on Hillary to agree to a debate where she might get tricked into speaking the truth. she already said she is keeping her thoughts to herself. she will respond after the most recent poll results come in. I am for/against/for/against the war.

another Lib lie exposed. all they really need to do is speak to lie. very efficient.

"If he gets the GOP nod, he'll probably pull out of every debate."

bZZZZT !! Wrong again. Rudy is the only top-tier candidate to agree to the Gingrich plan for substantive debates if nominated.

A challenge arrived at the office of every presidential candidate about two weeks ago. It was a letter, signed by journalist Marvin Kalb and Newt, challenging each one, Republican and Democrat, to sign on for "Nine Nineties in Nine."

That is, if nominated, they would pledge to take part in nine 90-minute debates in the nine weeks leading up to election day.

Each party's nominee would be expected to present and defend solutions in a one-on-one dialogue with his or her opponent. The moderator would only keep time and introduce topics.

Let the candidates pick the topics. Let the answers be as long as they need to be. Let the conversation be open-ended.

Any more takers?

It seems we have found the source of the ignorant cowards hate. he was mistreated in the military. now he hates them. couldn't get promoted according to his own schedule which, like a typical Lib, he blamed on everyone else, ignoring his own incompetence.

Very interesting. It explains a lot.

Proud, that poll is from August.
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_082307.htm

That's Speaker Pelosi, to you Zouk!

Mark me down for anyone but clinton, along with all the rest of the thinking Dems.

I know, therefore, I am! - MikeB

All of you are twits and cow something or others!

"you should have know when you joined the military is a meritocracy and doesn't promote fools automatically."

Zouk, this is proof that you've never been in the military.

translation - I was fooled by those hucksters San Fran Nan and dirty Harry for a while, but I have now opened my eyes and mind and see the truth.

Giuliani would crumble in front of Hill. If he gets the GOP nod, he'll probably pull out of every debate.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Jane - Considering the poll was taken in May , I think it's old news and has no relevance at this point. The news is not all bad anymore, despite what HuffPo and Kos tell you.

Even California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney now has a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.

Breaking ranks with the anti-war crowd in his home district, he said "I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,".

wow, it's particularly bad today. Thanks to those that actually kept on topic, about Giuliani. It's a little late for my first comment, but it took me a long time to trudge through the b-s.

As for Giuliani, I would say, he has a real problem in places like Virginia, where they remember him starting the crackdown on guns in NYC coming from Virginia. Bloomberg is carrying it on and i don't think that bodes well. But I admit, I could be totally wrong.

umm he had cancer truth-free libs.

drindl - it looks like the Dems are the ones with the attacks all the time, including you. Afraid of an issue?

Meant to addrss that to JIMD. "he' being rudy.

When he faced her in NY in debate, he fumbled and folded. And dropped out. Of course, he was getting a lot of bad publicity for his very public affair with Judi, and his treatment of his wife and children, so he didn't have much chance anyway.

But he's gotten far meaner, greedier, and more cyncial since then, not to mention power hungry, so I agree with you on that. He couldn't have hired a dirtier group to do his PR -- they are as blackhanded as exists anywhere. But you know the R's today-- Rudy or Fred either one will attack ANY DEM savagely. They are pit bulls.

"I see that the anon. and other wise character assasines are still at with the various posts like this one: August 23, 2007 04:21 PM
They contribute nothing, they know nothing, that have no value here or in life, so they resort to underhanded attempts to demean others. What a despicable coward you are anon. You are, or think like, the nutcase parisans from the left and right that haunt this foru, like hidden cow oies in a field and your names a legend - truth hunter, lylepink, jane, blathered editorial lines used as name, et al. You wont go away, I hope!, but will continue to serve as an example of how close mental illness is to blind beliefs in any cause."

I see that the anon. and otherwise character assassines are still at with the vicious posts like this one: August 23, 2007 04:21 PM
They contribute nothing, they know nothing, that have no value here or in life, so they resort to underhanded attempts to demean others. What a despicable coward you are anon. You are, or think like, the nutcase parisans from the left and right that haunt this forum, like hidden cow pies in a field and your names a legend - truth hunter, lylepink, lodmouth voter, jane, blathered editorial lines used as name, et al. You wont go away, I hope!, but will continue to serve as examples of how close mental illness is to blind beliefs in any cause.

I see that the anon. and other wise character assasines are still at with the various posts like this one: August 23, 2007 04:21 PM
They contribute nothing, they know nothing, that have no value here or in life, so they resort to underhanded attempts to demean others. What a despicable coward you are anon. You are, or think like, the nutcase parisans from the left and right that haunt this foru, like hidden cow oies in a field and your names a legend - truth hunter, lylepink, jane, blathered editorial lines used as name, et al. You wont go away, I hope!, but will continue to serve as an example of how close mental illness is to blind beliefs in any cause.

drindl,

If it is Giuliani vs. Clinton it will be exponentially worse than any other combo

Ignorant coward - why did they kick you out of the infantry? cowardice or section 8?

Answer the question.

blarg - I think it says about as much as the many posts here today from dems casting about for the best candidate and wishing for a pipe-dream. Or Al Gore, whichever comes first.

This poll was of GOP Congressmen, so it may not correlate all that well with likely voters. I'm surprised that Ron Paul came in third...chalk it up to Minnesota I guess.

If F. Thompson finally gets in the race, I think his numbers will go down once people start to hear him vs. the others. Either way, the social con vote could get split up and help Rudy in the primaries. Ron Paul's take will help Rudy as well.

Judge, I also thought that Will article was interesting. It's the fairest I've ever seen him be; he only insulted Democrats a couple of times. And he acknowledged that war opponents are correct in some ways, and that war defenders are often ridiculous in their rhetoric.

But he doesn't say what he thinks about the war. Maybe he now believes that victory is impossible, but I don't see where he says that. I suppose the fact that the article wasn't entirely cheerleading for the war shows that he's changed his mind to some degree, but it's hard to say. So while it's a surprisingly fair article, it's still not very informative.

you should have know when you joined the military is a meritocracy and doesn't promote fools automatically. Obviously the wrong place for you.

Republicans hate the military. That's why they never join and want to cut their benefits and attack them every way they can. They hate them because they are everything they themselves are not -- brave, patriotic, and heroic.

But zouk is brave-- he bravely sits on his white pimply as* all day typing, typing so bravely, while his mom [or his nurse] brings him PBJ sandwiches to keep his strength up.

Is your animus for the military because of the way they treated you?

too bad you couldn't make it from private to general before they caught on. Is that why you are so angry?

Ignorant coward - why did they kick you out of the infantry? cowardice or section 8?

Answer the question.

VILE O'REAILLY, another R chickenhawk, attacks yet another military man for speaking his mind. The R answer to everything -- silence the truth. Use the military, then destroy them.

OK zouk, I give up. you're right, I don't have any facts and just cut and paste everything. now can you leave me to my insults and garrulous behavior? We Libs like it that way.

WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE MILITARY ZOUK? SECTION 8? AWOL? ASK DON'T TELL? DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE? OR JUST PLAIN YELLOW-BELLIED REPUBICAN CHICKENHAWKERY?

On Foxnews Bill O'Reilly attacked the ad, and openly speculated that Batiste is now "looking out for politics" rather than the troops in Iraq.[4] The next day CBS stated that Batiste had violated his contract with them by appearing in the ad, particularly because it was used to raise money for political purposes, and that his position as a consultant would be terminated.[8]

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

don't ask, don't tell violation. couldn't you tell?

Ignorant coward - why did they kick you out of the infantry? cowardice or section 8?

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes 51%

No 39%

Undecided 10%

what do you think about this poll, 'proud'?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the Senate's top Republicans has called on President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas, telling reporters Thursday that a pullout was needed to spur Iraqi leaders to action.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended that Bush announce the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal in mid-September, after a report is released from the top U.S. officials in Iraq.

"In my humble judgment, that would get everyone's attention the attention that is not being paid at this time," said Warner.

Warner met at the White House on Thursday with Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House official responsible for coordinating Iraq issues.

Warner said the president and other leading Bush administration officials have repeatedly said the American commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.

"The time has come to put some meaningful teeth into those comments -- to back them up with some clear, decisive action," Warner added

George Will actually says something that appears balanced without the usual onslaught of $10 words.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202402.html?nav=hcmodule

Now even George Will doesn't believe that a 'victory' is possible since he's finally able to comprehend all the forces at work in Iraq. A long-delayed triumph of reason over faith.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/warner.iraq/index.html

MikeB, I'm glad to hear you've changed your mind about Obama. I think that he's the best candidate we've got. (At least, the best one with any chance to get elected.)

Proud, do you have any thoughts on the Minnesota GOP straw poll results that bsimon posted? What do you think it says that a plurality of MN Republicans support someone who isn't in the race and has barely said anything?

No wonder what happens, JimD, this will be the most negative election in history. The R's will do anything, anything, to keep the White House. You know that.

Batiste is retired. He has no 'contracts'. He speaks out of love for his country. But you rightwing haters, you actually can't stand the military. You don't want them to talk, just die for your favorite little causes without complaining.

The only way you 'support the troops' is wiht your little 50 cent magnets.

;Of course, those who oppose a war need no special credentials to do so, as so well evidenced by IC's modus operandi, but those who support it supposedly must demonstrate a willingness to place their own lives on the line before their arguments will be treated as sincere.'

zouk is the coward 'proud'. he won't answer the question. if you think this occupation is so important, is a battle over the future of civilization, is worth spending a trillion dollars on, and that OTHER PEOPLE should be willing to die for it, and that we don't have enough troops to continue, why wouldn't put your life on the line? Don't you care about your country?

zouk sits here and types lies and propaganda all day. his life is worthless anyway.

MikeB

I actually said that I believe Giuliani would be the most electable Republican candidate. If the election is Clinton vs. Giuliani, it will be the most negative in living memory.

Ignorant coward - why did they kick you out of the infantry? cowardice or section 8?

JimD- when you say that Thompson would 'seriously address'
Social Security, I have to tell you he means privatization. He means handing a huge pile of cash to brokers and leaving seniors to their tender mercies. Ask any single one of the republlican candidates what they would actually DO on any issue. Every single one will do exactly what George Bush is doing, because the entire agenda of the Republican party at this point in time is privatization of government and profit for cronies and multinationals.

If you want four more years of exactly the same and maybe worse, vote for a Rpulican.

Continually using the trendiest form of ad hominum attack currently floating around the liberal blogosphere, IC never ceases in his relentless "chickenhawk" designation of zouk.

Of course, those who oppose a war need no special credentials to do so, as so well evidenced by IC's modus operandi, but those who support it supposedly must demonstrate a willingness to place their own lives on the line before their arguments will be treated as sincere.

As such, it is an obviously contrived mechanism to skew the debate without bothering with serious engagement with, you know, actual arguments. Typical lib "debating".

drindl - more like you really understand paranoid ideaology.

"Well, first off, I think we have got to complete the mission in Iraq. We have no option; we need to be successful; we need to set the Iraqi people up for self-reliance."

Batiste had violated his contract with them by appearing in the ad, particularly because it was used to raise money for political purposes

Oh where oh where can we find an actual Dem war hero - you can't.

I grew up in California, Judge -- my dad had a top secrt military clearance and worked at Edwards Air Force base in the Mojave Desert--and was totally paranoid about 'the commies'. Convinced they were in the schools, etc. So I really understand 'conservative' ideology -- and how the 50's morphed into the 60's with the civil rights movement, Vietnam, etc.

MikeB writes
"bsimon - I, like you, think Fred Thompson would be the strongest candidate the Republican's could put forth."

I don't think that.

.

'Our military and our treasury are not unlimited resources. The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix. Our brigades and divisions in Iraq today are at near full strength because the rest of the force has been gutted. We cannot place America in a position of weakness as it just begins its long war against world-wide Islamic extremism. The Republican administration is bleeding our national treasure in blood and dollars with little to show for it.'

General Batiste wants to know why you aren't in Iraq, zouk. Why?

Loudon

I know that Biden does not seem to be lighting any fires under voters. I still think he would be the most competent president. If we could only graft Obama's personality on him.....

Any candidate who will seriously address the Medicare and Social Security funding crises will get my attention.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an item about Barbra Streisand, who was on tour in England. Though she's a big backer of environmental causes, and even offers tips for low-carbon living on her personal website, she was busted by the British press for touring in a private jet with a massive entourage that required 13 trucks and vast amounts of laundry--in other words, for sponsoring a traveling CO2 extravaganza

JImD in FL, bsimon - I, like you, think Fred Thompson would be the strongest candidate the Republican's could put forth. This isn't saying the Gulianni wouldn't be a good candidate, either. I think both would beat Clinton. The really good Democratic candidates, Edwards and Obama (Biden would also be excellent, but has no name recognition nor money), need to emerge from the fog created by the groupies and gossip columnists that apparently cover and comment about politics these days. If they do, and I still have some faint hope that they will, then they would likely win. Edwards would be the stronger candidate, simply because he is white and more acceptable to voters who retain some vetages of racism, but Obama is almost daily becoming more appealing to even the Southern "Bubba" voter and I honestly think he would win, too. All bets are off if the Democrats nominate Clinton and the Republican's someone like Romney. That, I honestly think, would spark a voter revolt and the emergence of a viable third party.

Although I dislike Rudy a GREAT deal, his chances of getting the nod just drastically increased. Scott Howell is as good as they come in the field of Republican media strategists.

Watch out Mitt, the attacks are cominig

DEL MAR - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said last night that he is the only candidate who can put California in play for the Republican Party. "I'm the only Republican candidate that can carry on a campaign in every single state, and we can be competitive in every single state," Giuliani told about 300 supporters at the Del Mar Hilton.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is seeking a ''bumper sticker slogan'' to carry it through the 2008 elections. The slogan also will appear on the DSCC Web site and campaign literature. ''We need a turn of phrase that really jumps out and tells you right off the bat what this election is all about,'' said James Carville in a message to Democrats.

how about "because 8 years of Lib corruption is not enough"

Or "the bridge to fecklessness"

or "We know better than you about everything"

or "open your wallets"

Santa Cruz, Bolivia - An $800,000 scandal is embarrassing the governments of Argentina and Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez is trying to pass it off as a U.S. plot to undermine increasingly close ties between the two countries. ''They are starting to say that they were dollars of Chavez, trying to stain the government of Argentina and Venezuela and, what's even more, trying to make us fight as if we were children,'' Mr. Chavez said

As rescuers drilled what will likely be a final hole into a mountain to search for six missing miners, the U.S. Senate added its voice to a growing chorus of questions raised over the safety of the coal mine. Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy announced plans to hold the first oversight hearing about the mine collapse when Congress returns from its summer break Sept. 5.

JimD: Biden certainly seems like he'd make a competent president, but he similarly seems like he doesn't have that "it" required to get 60+ million people to vote for him for that office.

Thompson is a joke who likes the sound of his own voice and people begging him to run. He won't.

Sadly, we are left with what we have now. I am not inspired by any of the candidates. Too bad we can't get one of those old MAD magazine composite candidates.

"Headline prediction for Nov 8:
Dems gain 11 seats, Repubs hold house
Liberal lawyers heading to courthouses, leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons, inaccurate predictions questioned - media bias? Pelosi to be demoted, exit polls cite lack of focus or ideas from Dems, Republican turnout surprisingly strong.
Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 03:20 PM"

Two years too early. you can reuse it.

On the other hand I searched the entire archive for one intelligent thing ever posted by the Ignorant coward. you guessed it - in all that text, not one original or thoughful concept. amazing actually. even monkeys randomly typing could do better.

According to a recent survey, 76% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job since Democrats took over.

It is unusual for congressional job approval ratings to be below 24%. Gallup says the 18% approval number matches the low-water mark hit in 1992, in the midst of a check-bouncing scandal in what was a Democrat-led Congress. The Democrat Congress is now doing an unusually bad job!

Congress has been rated this negatively only a few times in the four decades Gallup has measured this item -- in 1979, during the energy crisis; and at several points during the "term limits era" of 1990 to 1994.

The poll shows Democrats' and independent voters' opinions have darkened in the last month, and now there are no statistically significant differences in the approval rating broken down among Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Must be Bush's fault!

sorry for the double post, got an error message the first time so I reposted

Regarding the discussion of Hillary Clinton's negatives - I agree that she will not be able to reverse them very much. As Judge Crater points out, her strategy will be to raise her opponents' negatives even hight. Should it be Giuliani against Clinton, the negativity will surpass anything we've seen in the last 100 years. There is a lot of ammunition out there on both of them.

I am probably closer to Giuliani philosophically than any other candidate. But I believe we need a president who really understands foreign policy. That is why I am leaning towards Biden at the moment. I do not like Clinton and I like Edwards even less. Thompson has made some comments that intrigue me as well as some that appall me. He has spoken about dealing with the impending fiscal train wreck that is Social Security and Medicare. That is a very important issue to me. On the other hand, the idea that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been averted if the students were armed strikes me as insane. I am not enamored with gun control as a solution to crime but I think the idea of everyone going around armed is absurd.

when we said we were losing the war, what we really meant was a new definition of the word lose. you see after clinton redefined the word is, we realized that we can say anything and just redefine later if we get caught. Nifty huh?

you Rs won't get his but our gullible dems will swallow it whole, Like a Monica under a desk.

Regarding the discussion of Hillary Clinton's negatives - I agree that she will not be able to reverse them very much. As Judge Crater points out, her strategy will be to raise her opponents' negatives even hight. Should it be Giuliani against Clinton, the negativity will surpass anything we've seen in the last 100 years. There is a lot of ammunition out there on both of them.

I am probably closer to Giuliani philosophically than any other candidate. But I believe we need a president who really understands foreign policy. That is why I am leaning towards Biden at the moment. I do not like Clinton and I like Edwards even less. Thompson has made some comments that intrigue me as well as some that appall me. He has spoken about dealing with the impending fiscal train wreck that is Social Security and Medicare. That is a very important issue to me. On the other hand, the idea that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been averted if the students were armed strikes me as insane. I am not enamored with gun control as a solution to crime but I think the idea of everyone going around armed is absurd.

"Headline prediction for Nov 8:
Dems gain 11 seats, Repubs hold house
Liberal lawyers heading to courthouses, leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons, inaccurate predictions questioned - media bias? Pelosi to be demoted, exit polls cite lack of focus or ideas from Dems, Republican turnout surprisingly strong.
Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 03:20 PM"

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democratic leaders are aggressively strategizing a new offensive against the Bush administration's management of the Iraq war as more and more anti-war lawmakers publicly acknowledge successes ahead of a key White House progress report. Aware of the trouble Iraqi progress could mean for Democrats at home -- House Whip James Clyburn recently said if the surge were successful, it would be "a real problem for us"

"support taxing private equity companies,"

That is proof that you literally have no brain. All you do is repeat what some other idiot told you. Nice try, numbnuts.

I bet the approval goes into the single digits.

Meanwhile, over in elitist liberal fantasyland, the first-tier Democratic candidates are desperately trying to outflank one another on the Left.
Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and positions over the past couple of months demonstrate that she is just as eager to raise a socialist flag atop the White House as Barack Obama and John Edwards.

All three of these collectivists have called for universal healthcare and the renegotiation of NAFTA, have declared opposition to the new U.S.-South Korea trade deal and the Bush tax cuts, support taxing private equity companies, and engage in class warfare rhetoric.

Congress will return in September with a revived appetite for raising taxes, imposing protectionist measures against China, opposing upcoming free trade deals with Panama and Peru, and adding new counterproductive regulations to the financial services industry.

Americans should not sit silently while the Democrat majority tries to run roughshod over our economy.

trotsky,

I have never claimed to be a liberal. I consider myself a centrist, although some of my views could be classified as liberal and others as conservative. I look for pragmatic, problem solving approaches to our problems. I don't like either party, actually. I usually vote more against the party/candidate that has angered me the most. I have voted against Democrats and Republicans over the years.

"What are you writing about? I've been working on a book on the political evolution of California in the 50's and 60's myself. Have you read American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips?"

Nothing political, drindl. Like a couple of our resident lawyers I come here to avoid my day job, not learn more about it.

American Theocracy looks pretty good. I'll have to read it sometime during 2008. How can you write about California if you live in NY?

Blarg writes
"Fred Thompson beat all of the announced candidates. Despite the fact that he has no campaign, no policy positions, and very little experience, Republican activists still support him over the rest of the field. Not a good sign for the GOP."


That's my take-away as well.

.

hese principles are apparently not understood by many of the Republicans in our Congress. Besides the fact that many conservatives allowed President Bush to jump head-first into a war of choice, the bullheadedness of Congressional Republicans who argue for staying the course runs contrary to conservative values. Many politicians of my party continue to argue that we must liberally use up whatever our military has left. Bottom line, the Republican Congress of the last six years abrogated its Constitutional duty and share in the responsibility for the debacle in Iraq.

Our all-volunteer military cannot continue the current cycle of deployments for much longer. America's national strategy in Iraq is akin to a four legged stool with legs representing diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military. The glue holding it all together must be the mobilization of the United States in support of the incredibly important effort to defeat world-wide Islamic extremism. The only leg on the stool of any consequence is the military-it is solid titanium and high performing, the best in the world. After almost six years since September 11, our country is not mobilized behind this important work and the diplomatic, political, and economic legs are not focused and lack leadership. Most Americans now appreciate that the military alone cannot solve the problem in Iraq. In this situation, the stool will surely collapse.

Our military and our treasury are not unlimited resources. The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix. Our brigades and divisions in Iraq today are at near full strength because the rest of the force has been gutted. We cannot place America in a position of weakness as it just begins its long war against world-wide Islamic extremism. The Republican administration is bleeding our national treasure in blood and dollars with little to show for it.

The high price we are paying might be worth it if Iraq's many factions were making meaningful progress to achieve political reconciliation. But, after more than four years, Iraqis are no closer to settling their differences and the sitting Shia government is ineffective. With insufficient coalition and Iraqi security forces on the ground, the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again. The Iraqi Parliament goes on vacation instead of working, and every few months, it seems, another Iraqi political faction walks out of the process. To me, continuing to expend money and American lives on a nation that shows little drive to solve its own problems is the foreign policy equivalent of a welfare queen.

The only way to stabilize Iraq and allow our military to rearm and refit for the long fight ahead is to begin a responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq and replace the troops with far less expensive and much more effective resources-those of diplomacy and the critical work of political reconciliation and economic recovery. In other words, when it comes to Iraq, it's time for conservatives to once again be conservative.

- Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired)

Our guest blogger is Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former Commanding General of 1st Infantry Division.

For my first post here at ThinkProgress, I thought I would share something a little different from what you usually read here -- something from a conservative perspective. I think this is especially fitting, given the new poll of foreign policy experts by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, which shows 64 percent of conservative analysts feel the so-called "surge" in Iraq is having no impact, or a negative effect.

The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I'm posting it here...

Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.

As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik's Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long.

It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort-the extension of politics by other means. expand post »

Interesting news, bsimon. The blurb you linked to says that "hundreds" participated. If that's 300 people, that means that John Cox has 12 supporters in Minnesota! Strange but true.

Fred Thompson beat all of the announced candidates. Despite the fact that he has no campaign, no policy positions, and very little experience, Republican activists still support him over the rest of the field. Not a good sign for the GOP.

"Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?"

'despite the lack of an oil revenue sharing law, which is one of the key benchmarks that Congress had set for the Iraqi parliament to meet."

you negated your own comment. boy are you dumb.

Not one Lib will defend clinton. where is lylepink to declare the facts are lies? this does not bode well for your impending doom.

The noon thing, Judge... yeah, I think once you said that's when the hospital day room opens. But he could work for the RNC or Exxon, they spend a lot on trolls.

Desn't seem very smart, but I doubt that's a problem for them.

What are you writing about? I've been working on a book on the political evolution of California in the 50's and 60's myself. Have you read American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips? He was a huge strategist for the R party years ago, developed regional strategies and coined the terms, Sun Belt, Rust Belt, etc. He's now a Democrat and writes about how the R party has deserted true conservatism and become a party of whacked out warmongers and religious nuts. His book is heavily researchd and well-sourced, with much history--really a pleasure to read.

MN GOP Straw Poll Results!!

MN Public Radio is reporting on a GOP straw poll held last night. It is unclear who participated.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2007/08/the_daily_diges_252.shtml

The Minnesota House GOP held a straw poll on Wednesday night. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert said hundreds participated. Here are the results:

Fred Thompson (write-in), Former Tennessee Senator: 21%
Mitt Romney, Former Massachusetts Governor: 20%
Ron Paul, Texas Congressman: 16%
Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York: 13%
John McCain, U.S. Senator of Arizona: 11%
Mike Huckabee, Former Arkansas Governor: 8%
John Cox, Illinois businessman: 4%
Duncan Hunter, California Congressman: 2%
Tom Tancredo, Colorado Congressman: 2%
Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas: 2%
Newt Gingrich (write-in), Former Speaker of the House from Georgia: 2%

Senator Clinton has the leadership and experience

funny. Please supply the details. I will look for something in the Senate other than PO naming. Just how was she fighting for American families while a lawyer in Arkansas, specializing in access to the governor, cattle futures and land deals. when she was hugging Arafat, how did that help? Can't think of anything else. anyone?

Harry,, can we get some help covering up this crooked land deal, we know you are very experienced at this.

"Truth" Hu ter - No, whjat this indicates is that there is a whole lot of dirt out there that will be dumoed all over CLinton in any election campaign. Lot's of it really is the right wing version of what you left winger do here, but there are enough grains of real-honest-to-god facts buried in all of this that the voters will liekly believe it all. What they call Filegate is real. Those files disappeared and reappeared in Hillary Clinton's office, She claimed she never saw them and the FBI, for some reason or other, ran finger print tests on them and her prints were all over them. So, they checked the files and found (then) *recent* changes made to files, additions and deletins, records removed, and lots worse. At the very least, this is obstruction of justice, since those records were under been subpeona. This matter was never resolved, it was only pushed aside by the Monica/impeachment mess. Ms. CLinton has never been made to answer for this, but she WILL in a tough election. And, you can bet your bottom dollar, since the Repub's are playing this so close to the vest, that they have one or more smoking guns and WILL trap Ms. Clinton into perjurying herself before the public...likely repeatedly. Same thing with th cattle futures, with her insider trading, etc. Add to this the new revelations about her accepting money from foreign donors in India AND THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT (it's illegal, by the way) and she is in for a wild and short ride. Look, I loathe Ms. CLinton, I loathe her becasue she is so obviously corrupt, I don't bring up that corruption as an excuse to loathe her, it is THE REASON. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton's candidacy will visdit all manner of harm to Democrats across the board, good Democrats, not the dirtbags...they dirtbags like the Kennedy's will have all of the money the need, from their corporate buddies, to dodge responsibility for their actions. That is what frightens me about Clinton.

"JimD - you are clearly not a Lib.
Posted by: Trotsky | August 23, 2007 02:18 PM"

Voters have long recognized John Edwards as the change candidate in this race, after he flip-flopped from being a staunch war-on-terror supporter to a liberal protester," said Amber Wilkerson.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

Edwards said the past isn't going to solve today's problems or "a corrupt a corroded system."

"Those wed to the policies of the '70s, '80s or the '90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there," he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn't mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech, but her campaign felt otherwise.

"Angry attacks on other Democrats won't improve Senator Edwards' flagging campaign," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. "Senator Clinton has the leadership and experience to make real change happen, and she has been fighting for American families for 35 years."

judge crater writes
"Can you hear my mental sigh, bisimon? You're absolutely right; HRC has learned the lessons that Kerry never did. This just may be the way politics is played from here on out thanks to Lee Atwater and his disciples."


The primary voters of both parties could choose to support candidates that won't use those tactics - or maybe won't use them as much. Given what we've seen thus far, I'm not naive enoug