'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Of course the whiney toad doesnt like free speach. He also didnt like the hecklers on inaugeration day and dissenters at party functions and anyone who could burst his bubble that he was hand picked by god to start Armageddon. However, here in the real world, he must go on playing the president on TV until a real one can be found. Given the fact theat all the candidates are vieing for the "role" rather than the office, we are in for a tough time. For a president to create a Golum to battle in public is dispicable, but something we must face. The world image of Bush is in the chitter, and it is obviously a set up job, a done deal, but we are still the people, and the owners of this country, and can make enough noise for at least the malfeasance to be revealed. As for the Moveon mess, free speach is going to stay with us, and the apt analogy is: if the democrats were to cease funding the NASA program, the repubs would respond with: "they do not support the astronauts" For Bush to pretend that the soldiers are unsupported both dinigrates the soldiers and the public at large. He can do this because the people have been dumbed down to accept that the military Choose to go to Iraq to be chewed up in a meaningless war, while the war mongers create emotional motivators for peopel who do not have enough information to make a decision. The right wing projects a secret, hidden threat which can only be intuited by those who fear they have something to lose, which would be
pseudo christians, or christendom, without god in their heart.
Or is it that they Know there is no god and have to pretend that whole layer of confusion also? Whichever it is, and it may be a third path, the obfuscation, the lying, the pretense, is for covering something which hasent hit the mainstream, and that is the flinging to the wolves the substance of this country for fun and profit. Act they must, and everyone has their price. very few have any moral standard, however, and seen in this light leaves a chill in the spine of honest Americans

I have looked at MoveOn.org in the past...

a better group couldn't be found.

when you join, they have a list and a personal response area, that asks

you, as an individual what is important to you.

they don't have an agendae, except to kick the beeeeejeeezubus out of non_representational MSM

that tends to represent Rupert Murdoch/Clear Channel and all of those people bent on

porking AMERICANS, while selling you patriotism....aka

"the enemy,"

something like Webb must be feeling towards Warner for misleading him about giving troops some real downtime between tours...

as a dad, I am sure he feels like taking a ball peen to that old charlatan.

.

as an independent voter i thing bush is one of the worst presidents in history,however i could never vote for a liberal, and there are a lot of us who feel that way. which is why its almost impossible for a liberal to become president.

MESSAGES FROM MOVEON

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting,"1 our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

"I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO. YOU ARE OUR voice."

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000-more than we've raised any day this year-for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

The message from MoveOn members was loud and clear: "Don't back down! Take the fight back to the issues that matter!"

So today we're shooting for a very ambitious goal: Reach $1 million so we can dramatically expand the campaign we launched yesterday going after politicians who support this awful war.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/mcconnell.html?id=11275-8371548-FLSi0q&t=2

All day, messages from vets and military family members kept pouring into our email, many of them aimed at the Senate:

"I have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more."
-Sharyn W., NC

"I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for."
-Danielle B., OH

"As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is...."
-Ahmad H., LA

These folks have made sacrifices many of us can't imagine. Their charge to us was clear: "keep speaking the truth about how President Bush and the Republicans have betrayed our trust."

Bush made Petraeus the target, because Bush has lost all credibility with his dismal record in Iraq. He's hiding behind Petraeas and using him a "cannon fodder".

Posted by: afam212
The Moveon commercial was over the top. Petraeus is trying to do the best job that he can. Does anyone think that he wants to fail? The President is right to say that the General should not be a target.

Bush made Petraeus the target, because Bush has lost all credibility with his dismal record in Iraq. He's hiding behind Petraeas and using him a "cannon fodder".

Posted by: afam212
The Moveon commercial was over the top. Petraeus is trying to do the best job that he can. Does anyone think that he wants to fail? The President is right to say that the General should not be a target.

About MoveOn: They began as a group who tried to tell the Republicans to forget about impeachment, censure Clinton and MOVE ON! They were right, as the Republicans discoverd to their dismay.

Now they are pointing out that Petraeus used stats he knew was, at best, misleading. Every other report confirms this. He then pretended that he was not giving a White House report. Shame. MoveOn is right again. The public believes it as Republicans will discover to their dimay.

Uh, Cassandra, I am pretty sure that was the "fake" KOZ.

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-------------------

From this article We get a picture of the goals of the Catholic Church worldwide, and why they are insistant in the U.S. about harboring illegal aliens and promoting the breaking of our nation's immigration laws. The facts are that most of these illegal aliens come from predominantly Catholic countries. If our elected officials and the Catholic church get their way regarding amnesty for millions of illegal aliens that have invaded our country with the aiding and abetting of both our government and the Catholic church, the church plans on using the Catholic vote to do the same in our country as what they have proposed for the European nations and that is to have the state enforce their dogma...history is trying to repeat itself and the church wants all the power and control over mankind she once had.

Notice what Pope Benedict XVI states: "Your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday." Picture of things to come? Prophecy states it will and then the end will come.

Think of how many Generals Bush has gone through in his administration! I abhor this Administration's attempt at passing the buck of accountability to a soldier (who has to follow orders). The General is not responsible for the policy of the Commander in Chief! I thought the General handled it delicately enough, even at one point answering "I don't know" when asked about the effectiveness of this strategy. To me, that was absolutely brave to put in question the policies that he has sworn to carry out, regardless of his personal opinion of them.

Human garbage. I ask others to weigh in. Do you find this attitude acceptable? I personally am revolted beyond belief."

zOUK IS A FASCIST. i TOLD YOU :)

But move on and daily koz get censored. How is Fox and Rush still on the air agian, after teh imus lesson?

IMPORTANT NEWS

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16

ACTION NEEDED

Senator Dick Durbin's deceitful plan to keep Americans in the dark about the "Dream Act" and quickly pass it through
the Senate is failing under withering grassroots pressure!

Lacking the needed 60 votes for passage, a desperate Durbin, who opposes the war, is now attempting to use it for political
gain by pitching the "Dream Act" amendment as a military recruiting tool to aid in the Iraq War!

Note: military recruiting aspects of the amendment were in the bill before the amendment was presented. And laws addressing the military status of immigrants are already on the books.

This is just another scam being perpetrated by our unscrupulous
lawmakers to push through a massive amnesty plan.

Phone, fax and email your Senators today to REJECT THE "DREAM ACT"---INSIST THEY USE YOUR VOTE TO VOTE "NO" TO ADDING THIS AMNESTY AMENDMENT TO THE DEFENSE BILL.

'What do I care if some U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq? If they die, they die for a cause I have been taught by my party to support, thus their deaths are a regrettable necessity.
They volunteered for the armed forces anyway, didn't they? Those who chose other professions chose not to take that risk. And don't waste my time whining about soldiers from poor parts of the country who "had no other professional options." Waaah.

Our leaders are playing a complicated game of chess against the fanatic militants who hate freedom, and if we lose a small, acceptable number of casualties, we must trust in the wisdom of our elected leaders that their deaths will in the long run benefit the rest of us here at home.'

This tells you everything you need to know about the despicable character who call himself kingofzouk here. This tells you everything about the modern Republican party. This is someone so breathtaking callous, so unspeakably inhuman, that I call on all of you to say something to him, to stand up for human decency, no matter which party you are in. This is beyond partisan and goes deep into the hatred for our fellow americans that exists so deeply today because of the culture of Hate Radio and the whole rightwing slime brigade.

He's a classic war cheerleader and chickenhawk. Won't fight himself, but wants the war to last forever and let others do the fighting for him. He 'doesn't care' if some US soldiers die in Iraq. He just -- doesn't care. Means nothing. No big deal. An 'acceptable number' of casualties... 'waaah' he says. It's just fine for others to die a horrible death or be maimed, because it might, in some way, benefit him.

Because he''s been 'taught by his party' to support this 'cause'--then it's okay. Would have been a good German -- would have supported the Nazis in whatever they did.

This is someone who gets on this blog every day,all day long, for the purpose of sliming Democrats. Half of America. That's his so-called 'life' -- hatred for his fellow Americans.

Human garbage. I ask others to weigh in. Do you find this attitude acceptable? I personally am revolted beyond belief.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal investigators are examining allegations of criminal misconduct related to $6 billion worth of contracts for equipment and services needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Pentagon official said Thursday.

The financial scope of the inquiries was provided during a congressional hearing at which Defense Department representatives were criticized for moving too slowly to deal with a growing number of cases of contract fraud and abuse.

Hi,

This General is an honorable man who has dedicated his life to OUR country and has the Bronze Star Medal for Valor

___

Gen. David H. Petraeus
Commanding General ~~ Multi-National Force - Iraq

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005.

That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the "Screaming Eagles" in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm.

He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings.

In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America's 25 Best Leaders.

LIAR...I do not think so.

Peace!
Steve
http://davidbetrayus.com/

Don't you see this means nothing? Your whole life is pointless.

"NO - we do not want to lose the war.
NO - we do not want to raise taxes
NO - we do not want the Senate running the military
NO - we do not want the Liberal agenda passed into law.
NO - we do not want socialized medicine." - kingofzouk

Who the hell are you talking about when you say "we"? I hope that you are not claiming to speak for the majority of the American people, b/c they overwhelmingly disagree with you on four out of five of those statements you just listed.

This is really not going to develop into much. Bush has little credibility left omn this subject. His condemnation is merely preaching to the choir, and that choir is dwindling down to a quartet at best.
I don't support the MoveOn opinion of Patreas. I think he is a fine officer doing the best he can with what he is given. But the fact is the report swayed no one. This war has lost the support of not just Democrats but all of middle America. Only the most die hard Republicans favor it and only then because one of their own is President. Given the same circumstances but a Democrat for President, they would suddenly (wink) see the war for what is is and be screaming for the troops to come home.

Look how they chided Clinton for a military operation in the Balkans that acheived its purpose with very little in the way of American loss.

The GOP is trying to make tactics of the past work again for them. It's really a straw man argument. The wn't to take a group at the extreme and portray it as mainsteam Democratic doctrine. In other words, credit your opponent with an argument that's easy to refute, instead of facing your opponents real argument.

Ask most retired generals who are free to speak (active duty generals are not) and they will point out the hundreds of mistakes this administration made at the start.

Remember how the outgoing chief of staff of the Army told Congress it would require 700,000 troops at least to occupy Iraq. He was shouted down by chicken hawks like Wolfowitz. Yurns out he knew what he was talking about. But of course a career soldier who rose to the top of the Army could not know as much about deploying troops as a president best known for dodging his National Guard drills.

As usual dimwit Bush and hate the troops Republicans are disgusting. How can these people sleep at night?
I just donated money to MoveON.ORG.

I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something," Hoyer said

funniest line of the Day. too bad all the old school Libs voted against it including dirty Harry.

"Senate votes to do P.R. for MoveOn

By: Ryan Grim
Sep 20, 2007 05:39 PM EST

Former Sen. Max Cleland lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam.
Photo: AP


SAVE
Digg
del.icio.us
Technorati
reddit
SHARE
COMMENT
PRINT
EMAIL
RECOMMEND




The U.S. Senate may not be the fastest moving body, but it did get around to weighing in on the now famous MoveOn.org ad calling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us."

Since the Senate was offering up its negative opinion of the liberal organization's ad, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) figured it might as well condemn a few other things while at it. She proposed an amendment that would also give a thumbs-down to the Swift Boat ads accusing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) of lying about his war record, and to a TV ad from 2002 showing then-Sen. Max Cleland next to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Boxer quoted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to make her case against the Cleland ad. "I've never seen anything like that ad," she quoted McCain saying. "'Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." McCain, meanwhile, ended up voting against Boxer's amendment.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the man behind the resolution, accused Boxer of trying to "change the subject." Democrats responded by noting that Cornyn himself was changing the subject with his resolution.

"We want to talk about the war. They want to talk about an ad in a newspaper," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

"What my colleagues fail to recognize," Cornyn said, "is those of us who volunteered to put ourselves up for public office know what we are going to be subjected to in the back-and-forth of a political campaign."

"I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) of Cornyn's fair-game logic. "If the principle is sound, it's sound whether it's in a political campaign or not."

But his logic didn't win the day: Boxer's amendment fell nine votes short of the 60 needed.

Though agreement wasn't reached on the Kerry or Cleland ads, there was consensus that Petraeus is a heckuva guy. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called him "one of the finest officers in the history of this country, a guy -- he has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He is not a normal person."

After Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sang Petraeus' praises, Reid added a note. "The only thing that my friend left off regarding Gen. Petraeus, he also has a Ph.D. from Princeton," he offered.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) added that the Cleland ad didn't deserve condemnation because it alone didn't cost him the election. "To assume that Max Cleland lost his seat solely because they questioned his patriotism is to ignore the entire political process," he said after the vote. "I think the argument was that he voted wrong and the voters decided that argument was correct."

Cleland lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam; Reid described in detail the consequence of those wounds. "Every day of his life, including today, he wakes up and spends two hours getting dressed. He dresses himself. He does his exercise, running on a mattress with his stumps," said Reid. "But he wasn't patriotic enough to serve in the Senate, according to people who are in this chamber."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, took issue with Bennett, too. "It's not a question of whether he lost his seat," Sanders said of "the most vicious ads" that were "personal attacks against honorable, patriotic Americans."

Sanders argued that the Senate need not opine on every opinion. "We live in a Democratic society and people are allowed to do dumb things. Your newspapers do dumb things. And if every time something dumb is done when we have a debate on this issue, I think it's not only a waste of time, it's not what America is about," he said.

Another '08 presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), agreed, and didn't vote for that reason. "The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. ... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics."

The executive branch also weighed in on the MoveOn ad today. "I thought the ad was disgusting," said President Bush at a press conference. "I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad," he said, using an incorrect name for the party, which irritates Democrats.

Later in the day, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri suggested to his colleague, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), that the House ought to weigh in on the resolution the Senate had just passed by a 72-25 margin.

"I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something," Hoyer said.

"

zouk is a fascist :)

coward - it must be very frustrating to be so outclassed and out manuvered at every turn. Is that why you resort to your childish antics of posting falshoods under my name? Knowing your MO and the Lib approach, I bet you will use this in the future to put false words in my mouth and "quote" me from above.

If you have to fall back on those tactics, I suggest you have already lost. Maybe its time to find a more calming hobby for a while. you are clearly on the edge of a total breakdown.

Back to posting under false names again I see. you lead a pitiful existance.

What do I care if some U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq? If they die, they die for a cause I have been taught by my party to support, thus their deaths are a regrettable necessity.
They volunteered for the armed forces anyway, didn't they? Those who chose other professions chose not to take that risk. And don't waste my time whining about soldiers from poor parts of the country who "had no other professional options." Waaah.
Our leaders are playing a complicated game of chess against the fanatic militants who hate freedom, and if we lose a small, acceptable number of casualties, we must trust in the wisdom of our elected leaders that their deaths will in the long run benefit the rest of us here at home.

"Today's vote on the Cornyn amendment is unconscionable. Warner stabs Webb in the back as the Republicans torpedo his amendment that supports the troops, but then Democrats cower and vote for this repulsive amendment. They took another step at destroying our freedom of speech.

Bush hid behind Gen. Petraeus' skirt as he did with Colin Powell. How quickly we and the media forget about his speech to the UN that brought us into this immoral war. He admitted it was the low point of his career. Here's the Barbara Walters interview from the wondrous C&L archives:

Powell: I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.

Download (2899) | Play (1751) Download (1305) | Play (1202)

Dodd speaks out:

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war." - Chris Dodd

Paul Begala is shrill also.

"

www.crooksandliars.com

Roo, why would a foolish Brit know anything about american politics?

Thank roo for some common sense over this whole silly tempest in a teapot. I can't believe the crap the wingers get their knickers in a knot over.

We can and obviously are of many minds about whether the language in the MoveOn ad was inappropriate. That is a Red Herring argument. So here is a little game for all of us with some slightly loaded questions (reality has a liberal leaning):

1. Do you think that Petraeus' presentation used accurate information and correctly analysed that information? Keep in mind that not one but TWO independent government analyses are directly contradicting Petraeus' facts AND analysis.

2. If you think that Petraeus' presentation was not factually or analytically correct, how would you phrase this firmly but politely? Is "betrayal of trust" too strong a wording?

You really aren't that bright are you coward? that was one of yours.

Was it a head wound or pre-existing? They should have known by the 19 on your ASVAB/AFQT.

you must have just squeezed in under the IV - C category.

Why not just admit it Zouk, you're no different than Clinton or Bush. And as a bonus, you could be President too,

It's "combat boots," Zouk. But combat's something you're personally afraid of, isn't it.

Sssshhh! A blogger by the name of "Ihatebush" is over a Daily Kos right now saying Petraeus sucks and his mamma wears army boots.

Quick! Someone call Hannity for an exclusive!

"US politics is in the dumpster and it's there, to a large extent, because of those, like you, who pretend to evaluate political impact, rather than provide real info to the public so they can assess the right (and wrong) thing to do."

You must not know who bill kristol is, to make this comment. Ever heard of Bill O'REilly? How about Rush Limbaugh? You know they is this mean lady named ann coulter. He rants and raves agaisnt liberals are so bad I can't even get them on this blog. Fox "News" has hundreds of thousands of deaths on their hands. Which is worse? do something about the latter, I'll stop the former.

Your comment on Pres. Bush's condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad is a demonstration of all that is wrong with you and your colleagues in the commentariat.

It's not about a decent person being offended and saying what they think. It's not about a Commander in Chief defending an officer in the Armed Forces from a libel. It's not about a person standing up for a friend. It's not about right and wrong.

It's only about how it all plays politically.

US politics is in the dumpster and it's there, to a large extent, because of those, like you, who pretend to evaluate political impact, rather than provide real info to the public so they can assess the right (and wrong) thing to do.

"York went on to note, helpfully, that "No Republican voted against condemning the MoveOn ad," but Democrats split 22-25 in favor of the amendment. Congratulations to Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, Jim Webb and 19 other Senate Democrats for finally finding something they can get done with the control of the Congress given to them by the American voter. Nobody can say anymore that they have achieved nothing.

By condemning the largest and most active anti-war organization in the country, at least Bill Kristol won't say anything mean about them. It's too bad they have never found the time or inclination to pass resolutions condemning the endless attacks on the patriotism and integrity of war opponents, including decorated combat veterans within their own party. Is there anything left to say about how barren and worthless these Senate Democrats are? I can't find anything.
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

Sell-outs. We are no longer represented. You people are right. clinton is going to be the next president. And there's nothing any of us can do to stop it. try as we might.

The Democratic Senators who voted against the censure of MoveOn.org should be ashamed of themselves. However, the lock in step GOP Senators who voted against the Webb Amendment should feel the same way.

'it is time to move on and vote to end the war' - dodd

clueless Dems as usual. We voted to win the war today., not lose the war or end the war. dodd gets the kucinich/Gravel award for irrelevance today.

Hey dodd, why keep bringing up losing resolutions if you feel that way? what is it about NO you don't understand?

rufus (Krish)

"Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)"

that you for standing up agaisnt congress and with reality. That you for aknowledging what the rest of THE WORLD ALready knows. Thank you for standing up agaisnt the gop hypocricy. Fox has coulter and limbaugh on all the time. Why is fox not censure for lying us into this war. Which is more damning? And ad, or hundreds of thousands of deaths?

The gop and much of congress thinks an ad. I'm just glad Harry Reid heard what I told him, for once.

"People fear what they don't understand. HATE WHAT THEY CAN'T CONQUER. I guess it's just the fury in man."

I AM

JD - Ignorant coward could just paste a link to the Daily Kos and the DNC and his work would be done for the day. he offers no value added and would not be missed.

Except for alerting us to all the zouk sightings of course.

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Midday Open Thread
by MissLaura
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:26:16 AM PDT
Street Prophets is two years old. Go on over and wish them a happy birthday.

Remember what a huge sign his campaign was in trouble and how totally embarrassing it was when John McCain only raised $11.2 million in the second quarter? Well, sounds like his third quarter fundraising is going to be embarrassing like walking out of the bathroom with toilet paper trailing from his foot, his fly open, a booger hanging from his nose, and seeing his girlfriend kissing some other guy in front of everyone. Or, as the Right's Field suggests, McCain "might be headed to blood banks to round up some ready cash." If you're wanting to place a bet on how long McCain stays in, you might want to do that soon.
The same Right's Field item notes that James Dobson isn't happy with Fred Thompson's candidacy.

The field continues to clear for Jeanne Shaheen in the New Hampshire Senate race, with Katrina Swett dropping out and endorsing Shaheen.

In its earliest-ever endorsement, the Michigan AFL-CIO threw its weight behind Gary Peters in MI-09, where he's running to unseat Joe Knollenberg.

This week's Firedoglake labor post is by a guest poster, on immigration. They Got Walter takes a broad look at the effects - and some of the causes - of an immigration raid in eastern Massachusetts.

As rumored, IL-11 Republican Jerry Weller will be retiring. Efforts had already been underway to recruit a strong Democrat for the race, and it's sure to be competitive.

Thousands marched in support of the Jena 6 today. Several Democratic presidential candidates have made statements, with Hillary Clinton calling for a Justice Department investigation and Chris Dodd saying he hopes LA Gov. Blanco "grants immediate reprieves should any of the Jena 6 be convicted."

And Dodd again, on the Senate vote to frown at the MoveOn ad. (In, as Markos would say, a newspaper.)
"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Race tracker wiki: MI-09

Permalink :: Discuss (156 comments)

there is really no need to attack Dems, they are perfectly capable of self-destructing all on their own. they always do. they can't help themselves. all they need to do is reveal their ideas and policies for once.

Imagine voting against:

strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces

"We do not support the troops today, ask again next week"

what a shame that this blog has gone to sh!t thanks to the efforts of some kids with too much time on their hands.

These copy and pastes actually make people annoyed to the point where you hurt your own cause. Just put a link in there for evidence of your arguments.

Attack dems
Post from the weakly standard
Drool
Laugh hysterically
Drool
Repeat

I see the intellectual heft of the uber -left is hard at work today.

But of course the American media doesn't really care about or concern itself with the travails of the Iraqi people; they're unfortunate background extras in the epic struggle/battle/final reckoning that keeps the War Party's goggled eyes fixed on the dust-swirling horizon even as the ground gives beneath their planted feet.

The plight of the Iraqi people in the ongoing catastrophe precipitated by the US invasion and occupation barely flickers in their mental attics, but take Petraeus's name in vain and watch them whip up a steamy batch of ire heavily seasoned with harrumph. Even Fred Thompson, who seems to be running for president of Petticoat Junction, emerged from the pickel barrel to lodge his disapproval of that MoveOn.org "Petraeus/betray us" ad.

TBogg has more on this terrible breach of etiquette against America's favorite daytime infotainment general. As does Balloon Juice's John Cole, for whom the Republican posturing over the ad induces the delicate assessment: "The current GOP is a snivelling, brain-dead, spineless group of sewer trout..."

From the AP: Blackwater has said its employees acted "lawfully and appropriately" in response to an armed attack against a State Department convoy.

From what I've been seeing reported for the past four years, Blackwater, Custer Battles, and all of the other guns for hire contractors have the perfect defense. A variation on Catch-22. They claim that they act legally, but nobody will admit to under what law they operate.

'You Libs need to find something meaningful in your lives'

From a delusional guy who spends his every waking hour typing nonsense on a blog. Amazing. I would laugh, but it's really too pathetic.

Attack zouk
Post from Kos
Repeat

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

less likely if the US withdrew before civil order is restored. Some 35 per cent say it would be more likely to occur.

There are some other telling statistics showing the differences between the Shia and Sunni communities. Some 30 per cent of Shia Arabs say the security situation in their neighborhood has become better in the last six months and 21 per cent say it is getting worse. But more than half the Sunni -- 56 per cent -- say their security is worse and only 7 per cent say it is better.

These figures confirm the belief that the Sunni are being pushed out of Baghdad or into small enclaves within the city.
Ever since the summer of 2003 the US has never admitted the political and military consequences of the lack of support for the occupation outside Kurdistan. The latest poll shows that 79 per cent of Sunni and 59 per cent of Shia have no confidence at all in the US and UK forces.

This basic lack of support for the occupation undermines the elaborate tactics which Gen David Petraeus is supposedly carrying out in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

At first sight the Petraeus report looks as if it is going to be one of those spurious milestones in the war in Iraq, (like the Iraq Study Group's report last December), heavily publicized at the time, but not affecting the political and military stalemate in the country.

Unfortunately, the propaganda effort by the White House now underway may have a more malign impact than most propaganda exercises. It claims that victory is possible where failure has already occurred. It manipulates figures and facts to produce a picture of Iraq that is not merely distorted but substantively false.
[snip]

Iraqi society is breaking down. It is no longer possible to get medical treatment for many ailments because 75 per cent of doctors, pharmacists have left their jobs in the hospitals, clinics and universities. The majority of these have fled abroad to join the 2.2 million Iraqis outside the country.

The food rationing system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive is also breaking down with two million people no longer being fed because food cannot be distributed in dangerous areas. Rice and beans are of poor quality and flour, tea and baby formula are short. Unemployment is 68 per cent of the workforce, so without a state ration and no jobs, more and more Iraqis are living on the edge of starvation.

No wonder then that what Iraqis believe is happening to them and their country is wholly contrary to the myths pumped out by the White House and the Pentagon. The opinion poll commissioned by ABC news, the BBC and Japanese Television NHK and published yesterday shows that 70 per cent of Iraqis say that their security has got worse during the last six months when the US increased the number of its US troops in Baghdad and surrounding provinces. A solid 57 per cent believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. Some 93 per cent of Sunni approve such attacks and 50 per cent of Shia also back them.

I just realized why Bush's claim that an attack on Petraeus is an attack on the military sounded so familiar.

See Otter, "Closing Statement," Animal House (1978).

If General Petraeus is willing to let Brit Hume lead him around by the damp nose, it's proof that what we have here is little more than Joe Lieberman in highly-decorated drag, positively ablaze with flare. It is a measure of Petraeus's obliging pliancy that he would even accede to testifying on the anniversary of September 11th, thus ensuring that his report would function as a tie-in product. As columnist Gideon Rachman wrote in today's Financial Times: "The symbolism of getting General David Petraeus to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the anniversary of 9/11 appealed to the White House. It should not have. It is crass."

Worse than crass. A day of national mourning has been hijacked for a media orgy intended to perpetrate an optical illusion of epic scale, writes Patrick Cockburn at Counterpunch:

Show some courage Zouk, and tell us what you have ever actually done to serve this country.

Simply voting doesn't count.

Future President of Petticoat Junction Seeks Florida Fun

Sopping up gravy wherever he goes, Republican hopeful Fred Thompson pays his respects to the good people gathered around the filling station.

"It's good to be back among neighbors," he said. "You know, in Tennessee, every time I had a day or two I always would try and find an excuse to get down to Florida. Well, it looks like I found a pretty doggone good one. I'm going to be down here a whole lot."

One wonders why the former Senator from Tennessee was always itching so bad to get down to Florida. It's not as if Tennessee and Florida are right next door to each other; it's not a brief commute. Given my extensive reading of John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels, where rich women with coral toenails hide their inscrutable pasts and bitter sorrows behind tinted sunglasses as their nymphomaniac stepdaughters go missing, I have a fair idea of what might have been enticing the Fredmobile southward on the flimiest of excuses, but it would be imprudent to speculate further.

I do think it's fair to speculate how long someone with Thompson's history as a politician, lobbyist, and film-TV actor can get by with this Goober-Gomer "doggone" shtick. It's true that Reagan had his folksy side, complete with cheeks that blushed like painted roses, but he also delivered fully-rounded speeches with rhetorical bridges and perorations; he didn't just show up as if to shuck corn. I will say this, though: Thompson's somewhat lackadaisacal lope is a smart counterfoil to Mitt Romney's executive-vampire zeal and glinty opportunism--maybe it takes a real fake to show up a fake fake. Thompson at least seems to be composed of organic material; Romney is pure vinyl exterior down to the empty core.

While the battle in Iraq could hardly be described as clean and neat, the public referee just went both arms vertical. The "Surge" as described by the Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group just sailed through the uprights. Nothing but net.

Turns out all of this anti-war talk about the "Surge" effort was a bunch to do about nothing. Troops did a great job. Al Qaida in Iraq and rogue Iranian backed terror elements are less effective thanks to courageous and personal sacrifices by our military forces. Now it's time to "Surge" the spearhead of the left's vaunted diplomatic capabilities.

We cannot withdraw from this fight short of conditions allowing a stable and secure Iraq which is able to fend off the elements of terrorism which surround it's geography and are indeed part of it's recent history. To abandon the fight in Iraq short of obvious minimal objective would bring about stunning political and security set backs in the Middle East, the possibility of genocide on an unimaginable scale, and a significant reduction in our own long term security, global influence and ability to defend our homeland. The Bipartisan Iraq Study Group Recommendations recognized these possible outcomes and the executive and legislative branches of government are aware of it. If it was easy we would be out already. It's not easy.

While we are all war weary, none can be as weary as those of you who are tasked in life to shoulder the responsibilities of this hardship. Those who whine the loudest are indeed those who do the least in terms of support of the troops and service to their country. Nearly all of us here locally unconditionally support with great respect the mission, personal efforts, and the sacrifice of those in uniform regardless of political affiliation. Your loved ones are performing a great service and we support their mission and efforts 100 percent.

Except for 25 Senate Democrats of course

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/letters/ci_6948585

rufus = The Fix's MoveOn.

rufus, by posting so much text instead of links to the text, you lose everybody and distract the thread from what should be discussed. Just like MoveOn did.

Where's the "disgust" with Pete King's "too many mosques" comment? Maybe that's acceptable. Maybe he should tase Eli Pariser and Co...

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

To our conservative friends who supported this resolution:

Since when did criticizing a single individual General who is offering his opinion to Congress become not supporting the troops?

Do you support all of Gen. Wesley Clark's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. Anthony Zinni's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. William Odom's opinions?

Do you support Gen. John Abizaid the other day when he said a nuclear Iran is acceptable and something we can deal with?

No? Well then, nice support for the troops there, folks.

See how ridiculous that argument is? It's just another strawman attack poisoning American political discourse.

Yesterday, by a 5-3 vote, the City Council of San Diego passed a resolution supporting marriage equality. Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor-- who campaigned opposing marriage equality-- announced this morning that he had changed his mind and would sign the resolution instead of vetoing it. A former Chief of Police, Sanders, tearfully also announced that one of his daughters, Lisa, is gay and that he would lead with his heart. "The concept of a separate but equal institution is something that I cannot support," he explained, tearfully, with his wife standing at his time." Please watch the video; it is very powerful.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/09/stunning-about-face-republican-mayor-of.html

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we waste hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war." - Chris Dodd

zouk (rhymes with kook and puke) is bringing back one of his most venerable and obnoxious sock puppets.

I have gone from posting under no name to posting under kingofzouk to posting under women's names today. I am so confused. am I closeted or ready for a change? If I post under zouk will anyone talk to me or think I am smart. I am running out of hope.

rufas, you still love me don't you?

the rest of you wouldn't know zouk if he bit you. what would you do without me?

I served in Viet Nam-3 tours, and have a son in Iraq now. I agree with MoveOn.org's position, but I do have a discomfort with making fun of Petraeus' name. That's the sort of nick-naming mode Bush likes to use-very juvenile.