Hi Chris,

Your information about the Musgrave (04 Colorado) campaign is out of date. ONLY Betsy Markey is left in the race.

She is being mentored by a number of House Representatives and she is highly regarded in the district.

With the plethera of negative votes Musgrave has cast this year alone, we believe that she can be unseated.

Hey Chris, I know there's only 10 spots in the top 10 and all, but I would have thought Washington-8 would have been in there someplace. That looks to be a real barnburner (like last year) between Dave Reichert and Darcy Burner.

Maybe if Doolittle resigns or gets beat that will open up a spot, but as a Democrat, I'd love to see him in the general!

Check out Betsy Markey I think she is the one that can FINALLY beat Musgrave. She has a great background, no holes like previous candidates and the right overall profile to win here in Colorado. markeyforcongress.com

One of the Democratic primary candidates for the Colorado 04 election is Betsy Markey, and I know very well. She has a wealth of experience in the district - having spent 2 years as the Regional Director to Senator Salazar and prior to that serving as chairwoman of the Larimer County Democrats. She is known by leaders across the district and is so well respected she has received endorsements of all the major Democratic politicians from very liberal to moderates in this region.

She brings to the campaign a positive message which is also very thoughtful approach regarding the major issues facing Americans today: War in Iraq, healthcare for all citizens, economic growth and fiscal responsibility, as well as concerns for the development of renewable energy and independence from oil companies. Her website can been found at http://www.markeyforcongress.com/.

ademforyears

JimD - I thought that you on the trip and and were posting late at night in Europe.

Still interested if anybody gets the International Herald Trib any more. Thanks.

Michael, extremely well said. Unfortunately the R trolls on here are too busy turning up Rush Limbaugh really loud so they can't hear you...

Seriously, they're sadly brainwashed and braindead, just like the rest of the zombie neocons. I am constantly amazed at the things they say, because it just keeps getting further and further adrift from any knd of objective reality.

Thanks to roo, JimD, and Mark for you usual rationality. Thank god there's still some of that left.

Betsy Markey is The BEST all around candidate for CO's CD 4. She's not as well known as Angie Paccione, but has MORE experience with NATIONAL (read: Congressional) issues - Angie is experienced as a STATE legislator, thus it's not apples to apples when she's making the "more experienced" claim. Betsy has been part of Salazar's staff, a Senator known for his bipartisan work. CD 4 is not as red as it used to be, but it's not true-blue (like Paccione's platform) either - again making Markey the best contender against the weakly supported Musgrave.

Go Betsy!

Mark -- As per usual, your efforts to create consensus are admirable. For what it's worth, I'd sign on to your statement that Bush I's approach to the middle east was preferrable to either Clinton's or the current administration's. Look out though -- KOZ will likely argue that making such a statement is indicative of how "LIBERAL" you are, even though it praises a republican. :)

Judge -- thanks for your kind words. It's frustrating when attempts at dialogue are rejected. When the issue is war and peace, that's when folks really NEED to talk the most. Sadlly, we don't seem to live in an environment that allows for much of that these days.

Excellent, Michael.

Very well said, Michael. Don't expect a response that's even 1% as intelligent or well-thought-out. All you'll get is more smears about "libs" wanting to lose the war.

Losing a war is really the worst thing Zouk and war supporters can think of. Even after you point out to them that the actual war is over and we're currently in an occupation, they're terrified, or that the "war" was pointless to begin with, it doesn't matter. They're terrified that we might not be able to "win" this fight, even though they can't really define what it means to "win". I wonder what's behind that fear.

"JimD - does anybody get the International Herald Tribune in Europe anymore; or do they just use the Internet to get the news back here?"

I haven't lived in Europe since the '80s. I understand it is still around though. I will be visiting several European countries next month- if I remember (my short term memory is getting to be atrocious) I will answer then.

Zouk, Proud, Nancy, you ignorant buffonns deserve on another. Sorry, I've lsot too many comrades in this misguided, unwinnable war to count anymore, and the arrogance of you miserable worthless chickenhawks never ceases to blow me away. I don't have time to refute all the nonsensical posts here, so I'll just go to this one Zouk posted earlier:

"1. a political solution requires relative peace and security as a prerequesite."
Actually, the two are inseperable and must occur simultaneously. War is the extension of politics by other means, and achieving the goal of a war means achieving the political objective. The ultimate contradiction in a war to spread democracy is that "security" involves a most undemocratic crackdown on violence, the creation of a police state. It took an extra 30,000 troops to add "some security" to Baghdad- and even how much has been added there is in question. To secure Iraq would require 500-600,000 total troops, which we simply don't have, and even if wee did, we'd be an imperial occupier, not a force furthering the self-determination of Iraq. This is why, above all else, we must decide what our ultimate mission is- the building of a democracy or the destruction of AQI, as both will require very different strategies that will often contradict each other.

"2. now that this is well under way, we see the tribes joining our side and establishing agreements at the local level."
The tribes secured themselves by kicking out AQI after AQI came to power because by that point AQI had become the greater evil. When we were in power, they allied with AQI, when AQI was in power, they allied with us. That's not real progress. These are the same self-interested tribes that have been controlling the area all along, and their success had nothing to do with the surge, nor will it be long lasting. Their next target, probably the Maliki government if it tries to reassert itself.

"3. this is not how the Libs in congress expected things to happen because in their world view, a single person at the top controls everything"

Ok, nutjob, out of left field, inaccurate, and totally bogus, but tell yourself whatever you need to.

"4. the benchmarks established by the Lib congress was meant to embarass politicians, not measure success."
Just like standards imposed on welfare recipients are designed to make them fail and to take away their benefits, nto to help them out?

"5. With the killers leaving town, small businesses start, kids go to school, cafes open, stores stock shelves, etc."
Nice theory, hasn't happened yet, though. People throughout Baghdad still fear death squads and retribution attacks.

"6. the locals see what a nice life is possible and quickly become accustomed to it."
Again, not happening.

"7 If the killers return, the people are no longer willing to put up with non-iraquis killing them, ruling them, taking their stuff"
Sure they are. The killers are funded, have more weapons, and enjoy numerous tactical aedvantages in terms of their ability to strike soft targets at the time and place of their choosing and disappearing into the woodworks. Imagine if both Canada and Mexico had chaos in the US as a vital interest, but the US lacked a competent military, any defense forces, had no real border (and I mean really no border whatsoever, not the propoganda the right spews about the border these days) limited civilians to one weapon, and recived billions of dollars from powerful interests around the world to achieve their agenda. You think they could probably pull off a 9-11 every week no matter haw much the civilian populus resisted at least for the forseeable future? That's Iraq today.

"this has been explained over and over. Are you all really that dense that you don't get it? Or perhaps you think Arabs and Persians don't deserve to be free or happy? Are you that racist? Why die for Germans, French, Japanese, Australians, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, norwegians, tunisians, Egyptians, Panamanians, Granadans, S. Korea, etc...... almost every free country on the planet has the USA to thank, but all of a sudden there is a certain place that isn't worth it. what kind of liberals are you?"

1. We didn't die for those people, we fought for our own defense. If we were fighting for those people, we would have entered the war in September 1939, not December 1941. In World War II, we didn't set out a policy of democratization, mainly because all of those countries, including Germany and Japan, had democratic traditions and largely reverted to them once they were liberated. There is no history of democracy in Iraq, and it is not about race. It's about basic human nature and the fact that democracy needs to be so deeply engrained in the culture that the people value democracy over all other values (see the abortion issue- no matter how divisive and fundamental a moral issue it is, all sides see following the process as the greatest underlying value). You can't just hand people a ballot and call it democracy. Democracy isn't about electing people, it's about accepting the will of the people when they are against you and respecting individual rights and choices.

"We must conclude that all your liberalism goes out the window when electoral power is involved. What a sad party you have turned into."

I care deeply about the future of this nation, and weep at what a travesty it has become over the past few years, thanks largely to the ignorance of people like yourself who like to thump their chest and talk of "victry" without context while sending thousands off to die in a hpeless and unwinnable war. Winning does not equal defeating the enemy, winning equals achieving the political objective. The military cannot do that, and tightening our grip on the security situation will likely only be counterproductive in the long run if political progress doesn't closely follow, which it is not (that whole thing about regional autonomy? no different than what they've agreed to every year, it's a joke). It's time to accept the facts as they are, and begin a gradual withdrawal and transition combinesd with a refocusing of our political objectives on stability rather than democracy. That's the only help to salvage anything out of this failure.

What about Kirstin Gillibrand (I am sure that I misspelled both of her names), the Democratic congresswoman who represents extreme northern New York? I understand that she represents a GOP majority district.

In Pennsylvania, I have been impressed by Jason Altmire in the Fourth District (Pittsburgh's norther suburbs). He seems to have gotten a firm hold on the district and the GOP will have a difficult time dislodging him.

Mark in Austin--"And Roo, I count you as thinking we must be evenhanded between Israel and the Palestinians, first and foremost."

Yes. The U.S. is--to me--unconditionally pro-Israel so that is what we need to work on this side of the Atlantic. EU is, despite the popular portrayal, fairly balanced between the two but frankly I would like to see what happened if we were able to completely pull support on both sides.

At this point we may be beyond the point where things could just be left to play their course because of past policies. Without the nuclear component in the mix, I would say a decade's non-interventionist approach would probably be the best remedy to the current situation.

Israel is the key to peace in the ME. I don't know the amount of aid this small country gets from the US in terms of outright cash and military equipment/weapons, but I recall haveing heard or read somewhere it is in the $25,000.00 range for every person in the coubtry. This does not include the goods bought from them at inflated prices. Based on a per person accounting according to population, Israel is, by far, the nation receiving the most US aid. Another fact, Israel is again, by far, the most powerful powerful military force in the region.

roo, see this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

To further what Ron said, the Republicans also redrew Marshall's district specifically to help Mac Collins. It's REALLY skewed against Marshall to just act like he suddenly screwed up in 2006.

roo and drindl, let us stipulate that after Jim Baker and Bush 41, in other words, under Clinton and Bush 43, our policy has been too shaped by Israel's perceptions.

If we can agree on that, I still maintain that we cannot combat wahabbism without encouraging Arabs to counter it, and that is the central issue with people who blow, not Israel. I will admit to caring a great deal about western culture, roo, but I am not an imperialist in my own eyes.

I want to us to see if we can agree on a big picture before we reinvent Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. If we cannot, I am interested in everyone's views. And Roo, I count you as thinking we must be evenhanded between Israel and the Palestinians, first and foremost.

Chris, the reason that GA-08 was so close was that Republicans poured in millions of dollars throughout 2006 in GOTV and targeting in the district. This was one of four Dem incumbent districts that Republicans invested their 72 hour GOTV progam in 2006 and they still couldnt beat Marshall.

Roo has a point. There's a very good article about how Israel has been, with the help of the US, acting against its own sef interest. Now if I could just find it...

Mark in Austin--"I think we have consensus, now.

I suggest that the first step is finding Arabs who speak and write Arabic who are friendly to western ideas. There are plenty of non-Arab Moslems who fit this description: ..."

No, I must disagree. The first step is to stop unconditionally supporting Israel.

MiA--"We need them [friendly Arabs] because we need to train a VERY large cadre of Arabic writers and influential speakers and teachers and Imams who think women are OK and suicide is bad and government should be of, by, and for people. This cadre will have to be identifiably Arab and Moslem. We cannot counter the Wahabbists with Europeans."

Very imperialistic of you, helping the savages with rudimentary civilisation.

You did not mean it that way, did you?

This brings us to the second step: changing how the West conducts itself and presents itself--and how it is perceived.

I'm not sure about the rights of women in those areas, Mark--that's an interesting question. I have seen travel posters for them --some of the most expensive hotels and resorts in the world are there--and the women in them had their arms and legs exposed. Not as revealing as here [and how much worse can it get here] but not by any means veiled.

But that issue, and that of headscarves, is one of delicacy. Some women prefer the veil and headscarf, as some orthodox Jewish women here wear wigs. It's from the same tradition, of course, both being Abrahmic faiths. So it's kind of arrogant of us to make that decision.

But that's the nature of this issue -- trying to get a better understanding of each other's culture, so we can talk.

The Saudis, oh yeah, a knotty problem. But again, key to that is alternative energy sources, so we have more leverage with them. And then there's Pakistan--current policy not working out too well, either.

Finally, you've listed CO-4 as a possible turnover for the Democrats! Marilyn Musgrave, possibly the worst representative in Congress, was reelected with 46% of the vote--the lowest percentage of any returning member of Congress in 2006. With more of her constituents voting against her than for her--despite her dramatically outspending poor Angie Paccione--and CO trending more blue every day--it is time to say goodbye to Mrs. Musgrave, her pink pantsuits, and blindered focus on gay marriage as the country's leading ill. Good riddance!

drindl and JasonL, thanks. We are beginning something here. Dr. Mikhail will be the kind of adviser our NATO folks will need to begin this phase of the project. The Saudis will prove to be a very difficult problem, won't they?

drindl, are the women given full rights in Dubai and the UAE? I ask, because I do not know. I threw in that our cadre must think women are OK because the attitude that women are veiled chattel must GO. It is not a requisite of Islam, as the Bangladeshis have proven. It is a relic of tribal Arabia.

I would like to see us keep up this conversation from time-to-time. There is room for a tree-by-tree approach to these problems, of course, but I am hoping that we can identify the forest, here.

bigfoot/zouk -- why do you use different names when everyone knows it's you?

'And, upon further reflection, would other Middle Eastern coalition nations allow Iran to set up a Shia theocracy there without a war? '

Saudi Arabia would not. That's why we need to press them to send their troops instead of ours. Right now, we're just doing their bidding, protecting them from Iran and getting our people killed for it. If we remove our troops, then they will be forced to respond.

"states rights," JasonL?

You mean strictly from a 10th Amendment perspective, I hope.

this just in:

Dems Pick '08 Slogan
September 7, 10:12 AM

In an email sent to supporters of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this morning, political guru James Carville announced the Committee's new slogan for the 2008 election:

Sorry W I'm the decider

As Yeas & Nays reported earlier, Carville reached out to DSCC supporters and asked them to submit slogan ideas. More than 10,000 submissions rolled in.

this is the best they could do with all that brainpower. I will be laughing all weekend. this is going down a rabbit hole faster than hillary's theme song.

News flash Libs - Bush is retiring. you have to run your candidate clinton against Rudy. good luck with that. you're going to need more than dumb bumper stickers.

If the gop is the borg and you are all of one mind. Then yes, zouk. In a round about way. YOu are responsible. You are a supporter of fascsits. That make syou a fascist. Guilty by association.

I left the office for a snack and I saw a sign outside of a small pottery shop and I was struck by a quote from Dwight Eisenhower:

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

Which makes me think of a quote from Family Guy about the definition of a Republican:
"We help people that can help themselves."

Sorry if anyone's offended by these remarks, but it just seems to sum up why I dislike the neocon's. I miss the old fiscally conservative, states rights Republicans.

I'm only a year out of being an undergrad, so the Iraq war and the greater turmoil around the region was a subject of a number of my classes on foreign governments, comparative politics, international security, and foreign policy. One of my favorite profs was an Egyptian immigrant. He was frequently interviewed via satellite by Middle Eastern television stations. He believed that it was quite possible to do just what you are hoping, Mark, by turning over operations in Iraq to a coalition of Middle Eastern nations. Egyptians, Saudi's, Turks, and Iranians (to name a few) could bolster security in place of American troops and give the Iraqi's examples of the people that come from stable(ish) Middle Eastern governments.

Initially, I was concerned about allowing Iranians direct access to the seats of power in Iraq. Iraq could easily become another Shia theocracy. But then again, can it really get worse? At least if they start terrorist training camps or something we can bomb the hell out of them again. Part of the problem with combating a global terrorist threat is the fact that they don't have a nation we can bomb into the stone age. And, upon further reflection, would other Middle Eastern coalition nations allow Iran to set up a Shia theocracy there without a war? Wouldn't the other countries be afraid of Iran gaining too much more power?

Anyway, that the 2 cents of myself and Dr. Mikhail of UMBC. Security without American lives in jeopardy. We'd have to help out the partner nations financially, but would it really cost more than the millions of dollars we're spending per day by being there?

And what about Dubai, and the Emirates, Mark? It seems like there are pragmatic people there, people who are getting fantastically wealthy from trading with us, whose interests would seem to in seeing a more stable ME...

Not personal attacks, Zouk.

Just pointing out hubris and hypocrisy.

Sorry, last unsigned post was mine.

'Colin: isn't it obvious that KOZ is impersonating proud? '

I was wondering about that, Judge.

'We cannot counter the Wahabbists with Europeans.' Indeed. Perhaps another step is toughening up on the Saudi princes, whom, after all, finance the madrassas that teach Wahhabism. The princes themselves are Wahhabists, and yet they are embraced [literally] by this administration, even after 9/11.

We cannot untangle this either, without a coherent energy policy. It is our addiction to oil that forces us to coddle regimes who definitely don't have our interests at heart.

I see you Libs have fallen back on your conspiracy theories and personal attacks. Understandable given your positions on the issues and your wanton desire for pure power. no use confronting the adversary when you can just run and hide - as usual.

so just to make you feel better for the weekend I will admit to all the trouble I have caused:

Yes _I am the one responsible for every single non-liberal post on this site.

Yes I am the one that cheated in Florida and handed the election to Bush

Yes I am the one responsible for global warming

Yes I am the one profiting off the oil for war venture

Yes I am the one who ran over your Prius in my SUV

Yes I am the one who allows bigfoot to live in my basement

and finally, yes I am the one who makes you all look like fools day after day. So foolish, all you can retort are speculations about my personal life. your arguments are that weak.

And yes - it is most amusing to hear you ignore me while simultaneoulsy calling me names every other post (the crazy Libs) or trying to assemble a reasonable argument in the other posts (the salvagable Libs).

Have a nice weekend all. If you see a post you didn't make, it was me. Or possibly Bigfoot. I let him use my laptop when I go to my NRA meetings.

And the hits just keep on coming for the GOP

"Doolittle Says He Will Run, "Period."
California Rep. John Doolittle's defiant pronouncement that he will seek re-election to the House in 2008 has to send shivers down the spines of savvy Republican strategists."

I think we have consensus, now.

I suggest that the first step is finding Arabs who speak and write Arabic who are friendly to western ideas. There are plenty of non-Arab Moslems who fit this description:

Turks, Kurdish Iraqis, Khyrgizis, Indians, Indonesians;

but Arabs are harder to find.
We need them [friendly Arabs] because we need to train a VERY large cadre of Arabic writers and influential speakers and teachers and Imams who think women are OK and suicide is bad and government should be of, by, and for people. This cadre will have to be identifiably Arab and Moslem. We cannot counter the Wahabbists with Europeans.

We can probably recruit friendly Arabs in Morocco, Israel, West Bank, and Jordan.
Any place else? Let us think outside the box. And let us assume that NATO is in on our deal. Europe has more experiences with
people-who-blow than we do, despite 9-11.
Ideas welcome, before we move on.

Colin: isn't it obvious that KOZ is impersonating proud? At least I hope so. She didn't even acknowledge your (as usual) perrfectly reasonable set of questions above. That seems below even her standards of Limbaugh-inspired debate. And KOZ is likely getting desperate since all of his other sock puppets are being ignored.

"you know there's no intelligent life there anymore"

I whole-heardetly agree, there is little hope that Upchuck has any intelligence left. After his blatent lies yesterday, he is now the poster boy for deceit and cowardice and power at all costs.

JimD - does anybody get the International Herald Tribune in Europe anymore; or do they just use the Internet to get the news back here?

i DON'T CARE ABOUT SPELLING. I don't even care about caps. I don't care waht names you people use.

The word is what is important. Not the spelling OR the source. Remember that. Don't agree with a source. Agree with words. You'll be better off and fooled less by the liars and propogandists.

Semper Fi is Latin for "Not Me!" - Zouk.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47101

don't look now Libs, signs of even political success (after the much bemoaned military success you so feared) is about to end your plans for defeat. since you revel in defeat so much, we are prepared to offer you a stunning defeat next year at the polls. that should rev up your hatred for another 8 years.

Or you could jump your sinking ship and get on the side of the winners - The Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force, Reserves, Coast Guard. It's not that hard for a Dem to completely change their mind. the few of you who actually have minds change them all the time depending on the latest polls.

come on over, It's fun to win. I know you have only briefly tasted this once in many years and the outlook looks grim for your future victories, but if you swear to love and support your country ( a simple flip-flop on your part) we are happy to have you.

proud - now let's not go there

Mark - I definitely agree that US policy should attempt to ameliorate the conditions that produce terrorists.

The toy soldier may have masked the 5:06 PM post.

When do you express condolences to the 3,760 families, Zouk?

Just ask zouk

'Schmuck Chewmore,' -- yeah that's pretty tragic. Hate destroys your brain.

rufus, it's 'fascist' dear, you always mispell it.

once you see proud using MAD magazine level insults like "Schmuck Chewmore," you know there's no intelligent life there anymore.

'I assume that all of us believe that the USA has a role to play in this minimizing of people-who-blow.

Let me know if we can all agree on these points before I continue.'

Of course. I would suggest that any of us who want a future do. I think we have very different ideas about the approach, though.

'Whoops, I apparently have mistaken you for a person interested in reasoned, constructive dialogue.'

I used to think so too, but obviously, her mind is degenerating from listening to too much Hate Radio. Pity.

So how can we resolv this unc? Suggestsions.

Who started this war against the american people?

Who is there (on the left) to balance out the entire media being dominated by the right? How do we balance out this information un-eveness?

Do bloogers here counter balance the MILLIONS of viewers Fox Oreilly hannity Ingram Malkin and Rush have? Who is doing more damge to this great nation? Anonymous bloggers or the right-wing attack machine?

You are preaching to the wrong choir unc. If you want to do something about the level of political discourse, start at teh source. Start where is will do some differance. Help get Fox and Rush off the air. You do that and I will disapeear from the bloggsphere forever.

Until tehn I'm doing my part to counter balance their lies spin propoganda divide on conquer.

I'm not backing down. They control to much. To much is at state. I am a former Army infantry soldier 11B. Anybody standing on the sidelines and refusing to take sides is a fascsit enabler. Similar to good german's in germany in ww@. Do the good germans tkae the same heat as the bad one's for hitler? Now you know why all americans have to stand up agaisnt these fascsits. If we don't WHO will. We share their fate.

Zouk was on first the other day expressing his regrets and sympathies to Rep. Paul Gilmore's family, adding that Gilmore was a good friend.

It's way past time for Mr. "Semper fi and go Army" to express his regrets and sympathies to the families of the 3,760 people he's previously categorized as being just pawns in the larger scheme of things.

Or, don't the people Gilmore voted to send to war deserve that, Zouk?

Mark, thanks for your kind words.

Those goals seem to be a solid basis on which to discuss the policies needed to reach those goals.

Mark - I agree. (Your definition of pwb doesn't include Barney Frank or, apparently, Larry Craig, does it?)

Carry on.

We are all Americans, and it saddens me to see some who will throw insults and ivective at each other. All know they would never have the guts to say this in person, it's just the anonimity that makes them brave. Dems and Republicans alike are fighting in Iraq and afghanistan as well as here, and it's shameful and unpatriotic to see people here acting like fellow Americans are the enemy. Shameful.

the gop says only certain kinds of killings count in that toll. The real number is not known.

I do know 500 is a lot of deads for you to be scream "SUCCESS" and "victory".

YOu people are a joke. Willful ignorance. Remember those words. WIllful ignorance

JasonL, good luck with your house hunting.

Some weeks ago I posed a list of "problems" in Iraq that many of you were kind enough to discuss. Right now, I am going to list a series of goals for American foreign policy in the Middle East which I pulled out of my nether regions, but which I hope we can discuss.

I assume that all of us desire, at a minimum, a relatively stable ME that is no longer breeding large numbers of:

people-who-blow-themselves-and-others-up

{called "people-who-blow" for short)

all around the world.

I assume that all of us believe that the USA has a role to play in this minimizing of people-who-blow.

Let me know if we can all agree on these points before I continue.

proudtobeGOP writs
"Colin, bsimon, asstd libs - The problem you are facing is..."

Whoops, I apparently have mistaken you for a person interested in reasoned, constructive dialogue.

Sorry for the mistake.

I'll try not to bother you again.

.

"Can I just say that We Dems expected to get a very bad report about the results of the surge. It isn't coming. In fact, the surge, by all accounts, has been a masterful piece of military strategy. now we will have to find some alternative reason to debase bush, even if it means insulting our troops."

The reason deaths are down is the GOP merley changed the measuring tool. Killings aren't down. Remember last month ONE bombing killed over 500. O it was buried. Sorry. here you go

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

You gop'ers are a joke. If you can't meet the standards, how do you resolve. LOWER THE STANDARDS. tsst tsst tsst

"Except that on August 26, leaders of Iraq's three major sectarian groups, Sunnis, Shi'ites; and Kurds, laid down the basis for a settlement..."

Got link?

Only one I found was in American Thinker, which I think is a right-wing propaganda rag. Need neutral party confirmation before believing unattributed claims...

.

proudtobeGOP: I have noticed the past few days you are not your usual reasoned self. I mentioned the other day about you having "A bad hair day", and here again you state you live on a military base....Surely you must know any Active Duty personel cannot say anything against the CiC without being in a whole bunch of trouble.

Colin, bsimon, asstd libs - The problem you are facing is that your fav candidate, Barry Obama, is lagging severely in the polls behind you-know-who and won;t get the nomination, therefore the retreat from Iraq that you hope for on the near horizon will not occur. Even Hillary acknowledges that we must remain in theater for a long time due to our national strategic interests.

Despite her penchant for saying whatever she feels is necessary to the audience at hand, Hillary has broken ranks with the surrendercrats in the debates and shown some cojones by being the most hawkish. I admire that, I really do. But she can't win.

rufi, come back. no one else will talk to me.

"Pssst!! Hot Tip: Go for a fixed rate mortgage, not an adjustable."

Posted by: bsimon | September 7, 2007 03:44 PM
Actually, although Fixed rate mortgages are safer, someone with a good grip on economics can get a much better deal with an ARM. If you know a good mortgage broker or loan officer ask him about it.

However, I think that the economy is seeing a bit more turmoil than I can stomach for an ARM and I am getting a fixed rate. Bernanke lowering the rates helps me because I haven't picked a house yet, so I'm not locked into the current rates (high 6's with good credit and a reputable bank). If the rates get lowered before I lock in I get locked into to the new rates which saves me around a hundred dollars per month with a quarter percent drop.

oh spoke too soon. forget you had to be on here 6 hours a day, zouk. changing the subject again. what a tiresome irrational moron.

why aren't you in iraq, ignorant coward?

funny how the chickenhawks and war enthusaists leave when you ask them they aren't volunteering for war to 'save civilizaton'..

Except that on August 26, leaders of Iraq's three major sectarian groups, Sunnis, Shi'ites; and Kurds, laid down the basis for a settlement by clearing away the most galling issues preventing reconciliation: provincial autonomy, the status of ex-Ba'athist party members, and the release of Sunnis in custody without charge. This may well be the first step toward a lasting political order.

Need it be added that it was reported virtually nowhere in the U.S.?

Now you Libs will have to move the goalposts again. Seems like a political solution is in the works - In Iraq. no such luck here, what with all that time spent investigating, regulating, earmarking, fundraising, surrenduring and spinning.

Can we redeploy our congress to Okinowa? they are not meeting their 6 for 06 benchmarks.

The situation is dire for polar bears, said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, who wrote the petition seeking federal protection for the animals.

"They're going to drown, they're going to starve, they're going to resort to cannibalism, they're going to become extinct," she said.

As ice recedes, many bears will get stuck on land in summer, where they have virtually no sustainable food source, Siegel said. Some will try and fail to swim to sea ice, she said.

Bears that stay on sea ice will find water beyond the continental shelf to be less productive, she said, and females trying to den on land in the fall will face a long swim.

"It's absolutely horrifying from the polar bear perspective," she said.

Less sea ice also will mean a changing ecosystem for commercial fishermen and marine mammals in the Bering Sea, Overland said.

With sea ice present, many of the nutrients produced in the ocean feed simple plankton that bloom and sink to the ocean floor, providing rich habitat for crabs, clams and the mammals that feed on them, including gray whales and walrus.

An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say.

The polar bear is being considered for threatened species status because of changes in habitat.

Such a loss could have profound effects on mammals dependent on the sea ice, such as polar bears, now being considered for threatened species status because of changes in habitat due to global warming. It could also threaten the catch of fishermen.

In the 1980s, sea ice receded 30 to 50 miles each summer off the north coast, said James Overland, a Seattle-based oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Now we're talking about 300 to 500 miles north of Alaska," he said of projections for 2050.

That's far past the edge of the highly productive waters over the relatively shallow continental shelf, considered important habitat for polar bears and their main prey, ringed seals, as well as other ice-dependent mammals, such as walrus.

So, the questions that Congress should make sure Petraeus and Crocker answer are these: After the surge, what? What is the new strategy? What are the core missions of U.S. forces? Where should they go, and what should they do there? What can they accomplish, with a fair chance of success, at reduced levels? And what is the meaning of success?

No, but you are retard played by zouk. Oh, sorry, guess you're not playing, juvenile jerkas*.

when will you be volunteering?

why aren't you in iraq?

what a sad moron you are, zouk.

answer my question--the surge will be over in april. the violence will return. when are you going to volunteer?

how about you prooud?

Sam: are you that retard played by Sean Penn or that retard Sean Penn?

colin - your lame talking points have been responded to over and over. Are your fingers in your ears or over your eyes? Must be hard to type like that.

1. a political solution requires relative peace and security as a prerequesite.
2. now that this is well under way, we see the tribes joining our side and establishing agreements at the local level.
3. this is not how the Libs in congress expected things to happen because in their world view, a single person at the top controls everything
4. the benchmarks established by the Lib congress was meant to embarass politicians, not measure success.
5. With the killers leaving town, small businesses start, kids go to school, cafes open, stores stock shelves, etc.
6. the locals see what a nice life is possible and quickly become accustomed to it.
7 If the killers return, the people are no longer willing to put up with non-iraquis killing them, ruling them, taking their stuff

this has been explained over and over. Are you all really that dense that you don't get it? Or perhaps you think Arabs and Persians don't deserve to be free or happy? Are you that racist? Why die for Germans, French, Japanese, Australians, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, norwegians, tunisians, Egyptians, Panamanians, Granadans, S. Korea, etc...... almost every free country on the planet has the USA to thank, but all of a sudden there is a certain place that isn't worth it. what kind of liberals are you?

We must conclude that all your liberalism goes out the window when electoral power is involved. What a sad party you have turned into.

cricket cricket cricket

'So I assume, proud, that you will be for staying in Iraq at our current force levels indefinitely, even if it means implementing a draft [which we will have to, quite soon in fact] or shortening the time between rotatioins,[already doing that] and rotating people back a dozen times or so [it's already 4 or 5 for many] calling up reservists over 40 [already doing that] sending wounded and mentally ill vets back into combat [check] accepting into the military those with extremely low IQ's/violent crime records [ditto] and raising taxes?'

You still haven't answered my question, proud. This one, and after the surge is over in April, as it must be, will you and zouk volunteer to go fight?

Well;, zouk?

So what happens when the 'surge' is over and we have to start drawing down troops, 'proud' and 'zouk' -- and lose all that progress we made. Will you two then volunteer to go over and help out?

I'm just wondering.

"In fact, the surge, by all accounts, has been a masterful piece of military strategy."

That may overstate the case, a wee bit.

C'mon, 'masterful'?

If the surge were working the way its supposed to, the political situation in Iraq would be changing. It is not. Don't get me wrong, the troops are doing what they're supposed to be doing, and they are, by all accounts, doing it well. The problem is that the success of the surge is not solely based on military accomplishments. In addition to the requisite military accomplishments, the Iraqi government has to start taking responsibility for the security and stability of Iraq. That isn't happening, and until it does, it is inaccurate to describe the surge as a success.

.

he surge will be over in April 2008, when the U.S. Army and Marines run out of deployable troops, and therefore at least a quarter of the 20 brigades now in Iraq will inevitably be withdrawn and not replaced. This is by now common knowledge.

So, the questions that Congress should make sure Petraeus and Crocker answer are these: After the surge, what? What is the new strategy? What are the core missions of U.S. forces? Where should they go, and what should they do there? What can they accomplish, with a fair chance of success, at reduced levels? And what is the meaning of success?

I was talking about you, zouk -- but I guess you're a liberal now, since YOU"RE not enlisting, right?

Proud -- I notice you didn't answer my question and you distorted my words. Nice combo. My argument, which I've made consistently, is that there is simply nothing our military can do to actually resolve this conflict b/c it is inherently political and religious.

Do you disagree with the nature of the conflict?

Can you explain how military success, in providing a relative increase in security, can solve the overarching problem?

If you have answers to those questions, then I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, there's really no need for you to respond with simplistic attacks. You and I can rationally disagree, if you are willing to provide reasons for your views. Stating that you're for "victory," without defining what that means OR explaining how you plan to achieve it is really nothing more than a slogan and/or a hope. It's decidedly NOT a strategy.

his week and next, Slate is publishing three exclusive excerpts from The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration by Jack L. Goldsmith. Goldsmith served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel from October 2003 to July of 2004. It was his job to advise the president on the legal boundaries of executive power. But when Goldsmith began to review the legal work of his predecessors, he became concerned that part of the legal framework limiting the conduct of the military and intelligence agencies in the war on terror was profoundly flawed. Attempts to fix those mistakes led to a legal upheaval in the war on terror, a series of clashes with David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's then-legal adviser, and ultimately to Goldsmith's resignation less than 10 months later. Today's selection reflects some of those early clashes.

http://www.slate.com/id/2173488/nav/tap1/

accepting into the military those with extremely low IQ's/

Since when do Liberals enlist???

Semper fi and go Army.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 7, 2007 03:36 PM

ROFLOL-- the craven chickenhawk who sits here and types all day says Semper Fi -- how rich.

Why aren't you in Iraq, ignorant coward?

Can I just say that We Dems expected to get a very bad report about the results of the surge. It isn't coming. In fact, the surge, by all accounts, has been a masterful piece of military strategy. now we will have to find some alternative reason to debase bush, even if it means insulting our troops.

why do our leaders in congress have an uncanny ability to turn a very slanted playing field in our favor into utter defeat time after time. It would be nice to win the presidency once every 50 years or so. What is wrong with us?

We put all our chips in the redeploy pot and now it is all for nothing. the voters have turned on us and we all look foolish. why are we forced to root for America's suffering and defeat to win an election?

So I assume, proud, that you will be for staying in Iraq at our current force levels indefinitely, even if it means implementing a draft [which we will have to, quite soon in fact] or shortening the time between rotatioins,[already doing that] and rotating people back a dozen times or so [it's already 4 or 5 for many] calling up reservists over 40 [already doing that] sending wounded and mentally ill vets back into combat [check] accepting into the military those with extremely low IQ's/violent crime records [ditto] and raising taxes?

You see, as you will notice herem most people are invested outside our borders, Why? Because any one with a brain knows a big downturn is coming. So what about the approximately $3 billion dollars a day the US borrows from the Chinese government, so wealthy folks don't have to pay taxes? See, when things really go down, they won't loan us the money any more. .. and we will have to pay for it.

Do you get it now?

On point: In Lampson's District, the little weekly paper, not to be confused with the Houston Chronicle, is the Fort Bend County Star. It is published by moderate but dedicated R Bev K. Carter. As far as I can tell, the open warfare among the R precinct chairs, which looked like
"circle the wagons and fire IN"
back in May, has not settled, and Carter, who had called for DeLay's ouster, is firing away. This will not help the eventual R candidate, who surely will not be the hilarious Sekula-Gibbs.

I am not predicting a Lampson victory, but I want to hear from folks in his district before I would now predict his demise.

Off point, but of interest to the Iraq debaters - thoroughly interesting article in the "Economist" about Kurdish Iraq at

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9769132

Can I just say to all the reasonble people on this blog:

I am very happy to see that everyone is ignoring both the Rufii and the anon poster. They have now resorted to either talking to each other or cutting and pasting random articles, which are very easy to skip over.

Excellent work, let's keep it up. It got rid of Che, and I'm guessing they will eventually tire of being ignored as well.

JD Out.

Posted by: JD | September 5, 2007 12:53 PM

Like the surge - it's working. Of course, anon coward has little to offer but insults of other posters, as usual. A perfect example of Kos hate infused envy.

Democrat benchmarks - remember the six for 06?

Ok, stop laughing. they passed one. 1/6 = 17%

Iraqi live up to distorted benchmarks made by us - guess what - way more than 17%.

while the Iraqis are offering thier lives the Dems in congress worry about the earmarks they must steal to ensure their own reelection and how much camera time they can get on CNN. Take all the time you want up-chuck, everyone is watching fox anyway.

It looks like the political world no longer needs to debate who's writing next week's report on the administration's war policy and conditions in Iraq. ThinkProgress noticed this Washington Times piece that highlighted a minor detail: there is no report.

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.

So, on the one hand we have reports and data from the National Intelligence Estimate, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Embassy, and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, all of which point to very little security progress and no political progress in Iraq. On the other hand, we'll have Petraeus' opening statement to Congress.

And this is the moment the political world has been waiting for?

http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/gop-front-runner-or-buffy-villain-you.html

check out this photo of fred/buffy villains. hilarious

JasonL writes
"I think Bernanke's been putting on a brave face, but he'll drop the rates by a quarter or a half of a percent next this month. Saves me soooo much money."

Pssst!! Hot Tip: Go for a fixed rate mortgage, not an adjustable.

kingofzouk--do you really think anyone reads your drool? you are a laughingstock, a village idiot, like your president. you devote your whole life to being laughed at, like a clown.

Gold prices advanced Friday as investors sought a haven from sinking stock prices, a falling U.S. dollar and heightened world political risks.

Wall Street slumped after the Labor Department reported payrolls dropped by an unexpected 4,000 in August -- the first decline in four years and a shock for economists who projected the nation's employers would add 110,000 jobs to the payrolls. The weakness bolstered the case for a cut in the Federal Reserve's benchmark interest rate, and in turn undermined the U.S. dollar.

Investors have been wary of any sign that the housing slump or tighter credit conditions would spread and spoil growth in the broader economy, and the poor jobs data was "one signal that definitely contradicted the containment scenario," said Jon Nadler, senior analyst with Kitco Bullion Dealers.

Judge C says
"The continuing subprime debacle - deregulation's chickens coming home to roost - provides yet another potential damper on the economy at least for the next 6 months. Glad my stocks are still primarily overseas."

BSimon Replies
"I agree. I too am 'overweighted' in foreign markets."
Make that a trend. Most of my retirement money id overseas.

I know it's like spitting in the face of some people but, since I'm buying a house this year, I couldn't be happier about this economic downturn.

I think Bernanke's been putting on a brave face, but he'll drop the rates by a quarter or a half of a percent next this month. Saves me soooo much money.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fresh off the news that Osama bin Laden is planning an imminent address to the American people, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that, for the first since 9/11, a majority of Americans thinks the U.S will be unable to capture or kill the al-Qaeda leader.

The poll reports 56 percent of Americans do not have confidence bin Laden will be killed or captured, while 42 percent do.

The percentage of Americans who think the U.S. will capture or kill bin Laden has steadily decreased since the 9/11 attacks.

In 2001, 78 percent of Americans were confident bin Laden would be captured or killed, compared to 66 percent in 2004 and 58 percent in 2006.

ProudtobeGOP writes
"Progress toward a more secure Iraq has now reached a point where the President of the United States and his Secretaries of State and Defense can make a visit to Anbar province"

Ha ha ha! You're talking about 'Camp Cupcake'. This is a name the troops came up with, by the way. Yes, its in Anbar province, but it has a 13 mile perimeter. Its like going to Gitmo to 'prove' that Castro isn't running Cuba.

Proud - I accept the fact with great sadness that no matter what mistakes we make in Iraq, no matter how unstable the country is and how corrupt the Iraqi police and military are, no matter how much political infighting and movement towards civil war the Iraqi government shows, it will not dissuade the war supporters who will keep saying that the war is going great and the insurgency is in its last throes.

You claim that critics of the war ignore the good news. But you ignore the bad news. The GAO reports that the Iraqi government hasn't made progress on their benchmarks. Generals report that we don't have enough troops to sustain the surge for long. An independent commission reports that the Iraqi police force is so corrupt that it should be disbanded. And every time something like this is reported, you either ignore it, criticize the source, or claim that it's a lie. So you have no right to lecture anyone about craven politics.

Can you Dems stick with one position for at least a month?

First it was "the surge is a failure" then after two short months of american military prowess, the worst of the provinces is tame.

Now its "We need a political solution instead" Yet when the tribes meet and come to an agreement, we go back to:

Its a civil war - which is denied by the fact that killing Al Queda had ended most of the violence, so we try out:

Petreus is a liar - even after every single Dem voted for him and funded his war

so we must go on over to:

Bush lied us into a war for oil or some other silly chant - even though 70 some Senators voted for the war including Hillary, Schumer, etc.

so that isn't working out to well so now this week the Dems are going to try - maybe its time for a compromise - after finding out their voters do NOT want to lose this war and reflecting on the abyssmyl approval rating of the new Dem congress.

so after a "failed" surge, then a political solution, then a civil war, then an urgent withdrawal, then I voted for it before I voted against it before I voted for it, then we will win this retreat to maybe we'll compromise then....

Just admit it you total scumbag Up-chuck - all you care about is your own power. we all know it. the truth will set you free and make you feel much better about your worthless soul.
Hey Harry - the surge is lost? good thing you are too much of a spineless coward and worthless liar to ever have anything to do with the actual military.

I know you peace loving Libs don't like to confront issues but this time you will have no where to hide from your cowardly, traitorous ways. We are done being your punching bag - fred or Rudy are going to point out what disrespectful yellow cowards you all are.

when the facts are totally against you spin and lie - it's is an old Dem tradition, perfected by the clintons - the empress of corruption, deceit and power-grabbing.

Semper fi and go Army.

'
I don't think the Petraeus report will be meaningless, as you so callously assert. You have already formed an unchangeable opinion of it, and your party leaders will not be able to capitalize on it unless they spin it as a negative. Craven politics at it's worst.'

Even though bush will be writing it? You have already formed an unchangeable opinion of it, and your party leaders will not be able to capitalize on it unless they spin it as a positive. Craven politics at it's worst.'

Do you people have no self-awareness whatsoever? Do you really not see how moronic you sound?

SYDNEY, Australia -- President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

The president's next goof went uncorrected _ by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out _ the wrong way.

He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Howard and others grabbed the president and directed him to center stage, where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theater.

The event had inauspicious beginnings. Bush started 10 minutes late, so that APEC workers could hustle people out of the theater's balcony seating to fill the many empty portions of the main orchestra section below _ which is most visible on camera.

Even resettled, the audience remained quiet throughout the president's remarks, applauding only slightly when he was finished.

It's the President's Report -- everyone clear on that now?

Because he's fair and balanced I'm sure we'll all believe every word.

www.votevets.org

Read up. I ahve not read ONE general say stay the course, WHO IS RETIRED BUT HAS SERVED IN IRAQ/AFGAN. Why is that important? Because if you are servicing you cannot speak out. What would doing so get you? Jail time. Simple truth.

So what are the generals who have been in iraq and RETIRED SO THEY CAN SPEAK OUT SAYING? REad up. Votevets.

Support the troops. Bring them home. Don't trade their blood for oil and high stocks. Sell-out fascsit gop, you

"relative improvement in security is pretty meaingless"

Colin - I accept the fact with great sadness that no matter what progress is made in Iraq, no matter how much stability we provide and training happens for Iraqi securrity forces, no matter how much actual reconciliation and movement toward functioning independently the Iraqi govt shows, it will not satisfy the war critics who only want us to retreat and hand over a victory to our sworn enemies.

I don't think the Petraeus report will be meaningless, as you so callously assert. You have already formed an unchangeable opinion of it, and your party leaders will not be able to capitalize on it unless they spin it as a negative. Craven politics at it's worst.

Is the Post ever going to report that Francisco Pena, former Clinton cabinet member, endorsed Obama today? Are you guys just going to wait as late as possible, so as to bury it?

'So we may not get to see the basis for General Petraeus' computations that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq. An anonymous senior military officer tells The Washington Times' Bill Gertz not to expect a paper trail when Petraeus testifies to Congress on Monday.

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.'

There's no report from Petreus btw, so no paper trail, no documentation as to his numbers, nothing that can be refuted, and there's a reason for that. It's all made up. The General will say what he will, then the WH will write the report. So what do YOU think it will say? Give me a freaking break.

Really, you couldn't ask for a more perfect postcript to the whole battle over what to call the "Petraeus report" than this. Just unreal.
For a day or so now the wingnut media and bloggers have gone all deep purple with feigned outrage at Congressional Democrats because of the way they've been talking about the Iraq report that's due to be delivered to Congress next week. What's the beef these wingers have?

Well, they literally appear to be angry with Democrats because they're describing the report accurately as the work of the White House, and not General Petraeus.

No kidding. The outrage kicked into gear yesterday when The Washington Times published this piece, which accused Dem leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of seeking to "undermine" Petraeus' credibility by calling the forthcoming assessment the "Bush report."

The piece was linked on Drudge and a bunch of winger bloggers have been running with it, lots of them calling Dems traitors (snore) and worse. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez said that this shows Dems are "dissing Petraeus." Wizbang wrote that this reveals that the "Democrats are so predictable it's sickening." And Ace of Spades accused the Dems of preemptive "spin," asking: "Didn't these guys specifically demand a report from Petraeus in the legislation to continue troop funding?"

Why, yes, Ace, they did pass this legislation. Shall we take a look at the relevant section about the reports? Here were go:

(2) REPORTS REQUIRED-
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress...

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above....

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

yOU GOT ONE GENERAL RPOUD. hOW MANY DO i HAVE? From pace to batiste to eaton. The generals want teh troops home. Of course bush can find someonne to parrot his talking points. The gop always does. Why is it that gen batiste was fired from cbs for speaking out agaisnt the war. Hypocrites.

That's why I'm posting this book. For you proud. Is it sinking in yet, proud/zouk

Steve - I don't have preconceived ideas...I'm around those folks all the time on the military base where I live.- yup, actual soldiers: junior enlisted, NCO's and field grade officers. And they don't agree with you!

Here's a link from someone injured in Iraq whose opinion you may note is a not quite as negative as yours.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/troops-politica.html#more

Speaking of Schumer, this was posted a couple of hours ago. I'm not sure what conservative blog it was stolen from:

"The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

The post went on to excoriate Schumer for saying such horrible things. But what did he say that's false? The surge has nothing to do with the changes in Anbar; they were taking place before the surge started, and the surge was focused on Baghdad anyway.

The warlords in Anbar decided to side with us instead of shooting at us. Since there are now fewer people shooting at us in Anbar, the violence in Anbar has gone down. All of that is true. There's relative peace in Anbar because the local warlords have decided they want peace. We didn't defeat our enemies; they decided they want to be our friends. For now.

Schumer made simple, true, verifiable statements about the situation in Iraq. And for that he's called scum and worse. The state of political discourse in this country is just terrible.

BAGHDAD, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Seven U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including four in the western province of Anbar, the U.S. military said on Friday.

U.S. President George W. Bush visited Anbar on Monday and hailed improved security in the province, previously the most dangerous region in Iraq for American soldiers, now the second most dangerous.

I am not suprised to see Va. in the #1 spot. The state of Va. is going to play a major role in 08. I can see so many things that are in the "Likely to happen" catagory, such as Davis keeping his seat, or running for the Senate in that case I think he loses. Mark pretty well has the Senate seat if he chooses to run, then again he is a top VP pick. Interesting!!

R's have a group mind. That's how Hate Radio controls them. Rush or Sean or Bill brings up a topic, they have to go out and parrot it -- no thought, no brain, just repeat, repeat, repeat. They don't call them dittoheads for nothing.

Because libs don't seem to care one bit when their own party leaders disparage not only the upcoming Petraues report that has not even been issued yet, saying he is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted, insulting the General himself , for whom they all voted!!and all those who serve under him.

Progress toward a more secure Iraq has now reached a point where the President of the United States and his Secretaries of State and Defense can make a visit to Anbar province and meet with Sunni tribal chieftains once allied with al Qaeda.

What better time to trot out a Congressional report that suggests, in effect, that no progress is being made at all?

Is it too much to ask that politicians view progress as positive and not negative?

"Well, aren't most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them?
Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. Low RWAs are downright
suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives
might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow
is operating. But authoritarians do not, when they like the message.
So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely
unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say
whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it
will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs
or low RWAs? Isn't it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and
wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby
low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect
because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the
right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their
beliefs so much they're apt to trust anyone who tells them they're right. Heck, Adolf
Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just
a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection."

sORRY LAST ONE THIS TIME. To relevant

Yes - bsimon -- I was just listening to his show in the car. These people are just parrots--totally brainless. Every now and then proud says something intelligent, and then regresses to these juvenile, baseless, kneejerk attacks on Democrats.

They are so brainwashed and filled with hate they are hopeless. They think they're real enemies are half the American people. they hate Democrats more than they hate al-queda. They are on here all day, hating and hating and hating. zouk is the most vicious and abominable, but they all are vile.

Hate Radio has taught them to Hate America.

Proud, why shouldn't he call it the Bush Report? After all, it is the administration, and not the general, that is the force behind the actual text of the report. The simple fact is that the generals on the ground know what happened the last time a general publcily contradicted Bush & Co., and not one of them want to have the same thing happen. Considering this, I think it is obvious who is behind the report.

Besides, don't talk about Petraeus as "the soldiers on the ground." I'll tell you what, as a former veteran, how about you go up to a bunch of soldiers and ask them what they think of the generals. Almost all of them well tell you that once you get stars you are more of a politician than a military person. If you want to hear what the soldiers are saying, read the op-ed piece that ran in the NYT from actual soldiers: junior enlisted, NCO's and field grade officers, and that will show you the truth, but it doesn't fit your preconceived notions that the surge is working, so you probably won't.

Proud -- care to respond to my point, which is that relative improvement in security is pretty meaingless given that the problems we're talking about are inherently political and religious? Also, every indication is that the WH IS writing the report. How is stating a fact objectionable?

proud- now you're picking up on zouk's talking points? Is this Rush's main topic of the day or something? Drudge's headline? The ONLY people talking about Schumer are GOP spinners. Why is that?

Apparently the Dems in Congress prefer offering their own volley of reports prior to General Petraeus' report to shift the focus away from their own abyssmal approval ratings.

Now they are not showing any respect for the outstanding and honorable General Petraeus...they are now calling the Petraeus Report the "Bush Report" in an effort to discredit it.

Schmuck Chewmore leading the charge as always...attempting to convince the masses that he knows all and is more informe