home

Bush's Iraq Speech: Open Thread

Update: Here is the text (html) of President Bush's speech.

****

President Bush will be addressing the nation on Iraq tonight at 9pm ET. Here's a preview of what he is going to say.

There are 168,000 troops currently in Iraq. His plan to bring some home will leave us at about the same level as in January, before the "surge."

That's not a withdrawal plan either party should accept. As for responses by the Democratic candidates:

Hillary Clinton sent this letter to Bush.

What you are planning to tell the American people tomorrow night is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. Mr. President, that is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war.

John Edwards will have a two minute ad on MSNBC on the inadequacy of Bush's Iraq plan following the speech. Excerpts from the ad are here.

More...

I'm not heartened by Obama saying today that Congress doesn't have the votes to force a withdrawal and instead will focus on a cap for the number of deployed troops.

I'm not sure if Big Tent Democrat is on hand to continue this thread by live-blogging the speech, but either way, you are all free to live-blog or put your reactions in the comments.

< Rethinking Sex Offender Registration and Residency Legislation | 36th Anniversary of Attica Prison Uprising >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm going to say it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by manys on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:19:40 PM EST
    Barack Obama is a wimp. I don't say this to be mean, it's just that his entire campaign is predicated on what he will do in a year and a half, not what he would do now. If any of the leading contenders feel the wimp factor, it's him. He doesn't sound like it, but take the booming voice away and there's not a lot of substance. I'm not sure if this is intentional, but I'm not buying it either way.

    RE: Obama... (none / 0) (#3)
    by bare ruined choirs on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:25:50 PM EST
    Im loathe to say it, but I agree with you. I have been an Edwards supporter for awhile now, but I have still had hope that Obama would be a good candidate. Recently my hope has been weakened by his rhetoric on the Congress' hope to stop this Rogue President. I hope to God that Edwards can pull off getting the nomination. Can't wait for his response.

    Parent
    Obama 08, it's inevitable, stop fighting it. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    What's that I smell coming from the Clinton camp, the unmistakable scent of fear.  

    Obama 08, new leadership for new century.  

    Parent

    I Agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by aj12754 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    ...but he only is one of several "not-ready-for-prime-time candidates...of course Fred Thompson blows that field away.  His particular combination of unself-conscious ignorance and mindless platitudinizing really makes him stand out from the pack.

    Parent
    Amen (none / 0) (#13)
    by bare ruined choirs on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    Thompson is ridiculous and can hardly even keep up with his own positions. This is from George Will, a conservative for Christ's sake:
    Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

    He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know [...]

    Parent

    Honestly.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:38:10 AM EST
    the only thing I'm really looking forward to this campaign season will be watching Freddie in a debate. I know he will emnbarrass himself even against the other Republicans but I am still keeping my fingers crossed that we see have an opportuntity to see the "Bambi v. Godzilla" encounter between him and Hillary.

    Parent
    BTW - Have noticed (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    This is from George Will, a conservative for Christ's sake:

    that Leftist have been criticizing their own candidates...

    Wonder if that's how George Will learned how, or if the Leftists learned from George Will..

    Oh well. Primaries, nominations, etc...

    Parent

    Are you insane? (none / 0) (#70)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    aj (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    Let me see. I point out that both parties have multiple candidates and both have supporters who attack each other...

    And you want to know if I am insance?

    Nope.

    Do you have any more examples of your intelligence you want to display??

    Parent

    oh well (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    what would be the point really ...you're doing a shtick here -- and it's become tiresome to me...peddle it elsewhere why don't you...I'm done.

    Parent
    Have you considered... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    that he's no wimp...just as corrupt as the rest of them?

    Parent
    Slightly OT but counterpoint to Bush (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:37:06 PM EST
    Dr. Dahlia Wasfi was one of the speakers at Socialism2007 June 14-17, 2007, Crowne Plaza Chicago O'Hare.

    Dr. Wasfi is a speaker and activist. Born in the United States to an American Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father, she lived in Iraq as a child, returning to the U.S. at age 5. She graduated from Swarthmore College with a B.A. in Biology in 1993 and earned her medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. Dr. Wasfi has made two trips to Iraq since the 2003 "Shock and Awe" invasion to visit her extended family. She returned from a three month stay in Basrah in March 2006. On April 27, 2006, she testified at a Congressional Forum to provide her eyewitness account of life in Iraq. Based on her experiences, Dr. Wasfi is speaking out in support of immediate, unconditional withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and the need to end the occupation "from the Nile to the Euphrates." Her website is Liberate This.

    ICH has the video of her speaking engagement in June here:

    This is strong, unapologetic, no holds barred, bareknuckle stuff. It is not for those who would rather not know about:

    Shortages; lack of electricity; potable water; tanks rolling through the streets night and day; gunfire and explosions. Iraqi health care in shambles. 200 bodies turn up daily in the Baghdad morgue. For Iraqis, it's 9/11 every day.


    I hope she heard (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    Bush's speech tonight. That way she'll know she's living in a democracy that can shine the light of freedom on the Arab world. Too bad about the raw sewage in the streets, but it's a small price to pay, at least as far as Rep.Boehner and his Bush-enabling ilk are concerned.

    Parent
    Of course things are miserable. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    It is called "war."

    And tell your heroine to quit protesting those who are trying to help Iraq become a functioning democracy and start bad mouthing the terrorists and radicals who are busy killing other Iraqis. We will be gone in a heart beat when that happens.

    Is that "bare knuckle" enough? Now you gonna go speak some truth to power??

    Wow! Gosh! Bam! Zap! Look out Batman, here comes Edger and his keyboard commandos!!

    Parent

    Why we shouldn't go to war based on lies and hype (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:46:18 PM EST
    It is called "war."

    Now why didn't this sink in years ago, when most of the world was warning against precisely what we're seeing now.

    Repeatedly and stubbornly, this war-bound administration and their bloodthirsty war pornographers didn't listen to virtually every expert -- military, policy (domestic and foreign), human rights and humanitarian groups, ecological groups and the voices of majorities in developed democracies and Iraq's neighbors who'd also be affected -- not to bomb while inspectors were completing their WMD report.

    Too bad the war-bound administration lied to Congress about the 911-Iraq connection and WMDs to get war powers that cronies always intended to use fraudulently to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq before the UNSC had a chance to vote on the issue.

    Too bad the jerks in the Republican Palace pretended it had no "choice" to conduct this multi-trillion dollar open-ended goatf*ck and historically unprecedented blunder.

    Too bad for the millions killed, maimed, displaced, impoverished and condemned to suffer for the political aspirations of a very few enriched and empowered by this atrocity.

    War, huh ...

    Parent

    You know... (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:04:35 AM EST
    Lay aside all of the blame. Forget that all of the intelligence communities thought Iraq had WMD. Forget that we know that Saddam was trying to get back into the WMD business. Ignore the fact that Iraq and al-Qaida had agreed to work together on a "enemy of my enemy is my friend basis." Try to ignore that the Left's protests have convinced the terrorists if they just keep killing Iraqi civilians and ambushing US troops that the Democratic party will give them a political victory as they did in Vietnam.

    Just sit there and attack the US.

    Forget about the attacks by Iraqis on other Iraqis by car bombs in shopping markets. Don't ask yourself why the terrorists want to terrorize their fellow citizens.

    Just sit there and attack the US.

    Don't think about Iran and Syria wanting to dominate Iraq. Forget about Iran's President vowing to destroy Israel.

    Just sit there and attack the US.

    I mean doing so will certainly increase the security of your fellow citizens, support the troops now fighting and save civilian lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. I mean you have been keeping up with Thailand haven't you?? Darfur?? Indonesia? Africa? Haven't you??

    And when you do get up, make sure it is to go to a protest that you are losing your rights... and don't think about the irony in that... and whatever you do, find every dictionary you can and black out the word "responsibility."

    Parent

    Factually incorrect of course (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:21:02 AM EST
    It is not true that all the intelligence agencies thought there were WMD in Iraq, nothwithstanding how you wish it so.

    Saddam wanted WMD? I want a million dollars! Your point?

    Iraq and Saddam hated each other. They were not working together. That's been debunked.

    When is it permissible for citizens to criticize their government Jim? And at what point do you and your ilk begin demanding imprisionment for those who do, labeling them traitors? Why do you want to be in the US, if you want it to be run by a tinhorn caudillo with visions of monarchy dancing in his head?

    The rest of your rant? Stale warmed over "stay the course in Vietnam" talking points.  

    Parent

    You forget that David Kay said he was trying (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    to get back in, and you want to forget that the man who had none, didn't want any and just looked forward to peace and love, well at least in many of those on the Left's mind did this.

    Mr Ekeus told Reuters news agency that he had passed the information to the Volcker Commission. "I told the Volcker people that Tariq [Aziz] said a couple of million was there if we report right. My answer was, 'That is not the way we do business in Sweden.' "

    A clean report from Mr Ekeus's inspectors would have been vital in lifting sanctions against Saddam's regime. But the inspectors never established what had happened to the regime's illicit weapons and never gave Iraq a clean bill of health.

    The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme. It proves that Iraq was offering huge sums of cash to influential foreigners in return for political favours.

    Nope. Aint done a thing officer. All those guns in the back seat? Why nothing. Nothing at all.

    How about me giving you two million dollars since I was doing anything.

    hehe


    Parent

    When did this alleged offer take place? (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    Iraq had no WMD.  Even David Kay has said so. According to State of Denial, Kay was unimpressed with the evidence the Bushies claimed to have when he finally saw it and his investigation bore that out.

    This doesn't really help your original argument. Your attmept to lead down the rabbit hole, rather than stick to your original assertion has failed.

    The rest of your post is incoherent.

    Parent

    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    Iraq was trying to get back into the WMD business.

    Even David Kay has said so.

    Read the link. The attemoted bribe shows intent.

    Watch out for those rabbit holes. A person could break their credibility.

    Parent

    Again I want a 1 million dollars (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    Your point?

    Wanting WMD and HAVING WMD are two different things.

    You DO understand the difference, I trust?

    Parent

    Wanting something is the (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    first stage of getting somnething.

    BTW - We also know, again from David Kay, that Iraq had missles that cleary exceed the range limitation specified in the UN sanctions.

    Now why would you have missles if you didn't have, or expect to have, weapons that they could be used to deliver??

    hehe


    Parent

    And his ability to get... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    come on, you can do it, finish the thought!

    (answer: slim and none)

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:58:41 PM EST
    the Jose Padilla interogation video the government "lost" just before his "trial".

    Some war on terror. I guess they can always fall back on the incompetency defense again, though.

    Parent

    Aw yes... (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:04:10 PM EST
    I think the dear boy lost a finger... or was it he fingered a loss....

    Parent
    Why do you hate American values? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    You really want me to?? (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:06:00 PM EST
    If he hadn't been stopped he would have had a new generation of WMD's to threaten his neihbors amd launch against Israel.


    Parent
    How would he have gotten this stuff? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    Its not that easy to assemble WMD, even if you are not under daily surveillance.

    Again it goes back to desire AND ability. He was even close to getting WMD in 2003.

    Parent

    oy should read: not even close in 2003 (none / 0) (#112)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    Forget about the attacks by Iraqis on other Iraqis (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    Regarding the motivations of the insurgents I interrogated in Iraq, a week ago I wrote:

    The vast majority of them weren't radical Muslims, bin Laden acolytes or Saddam hardliners; they were motivated by nationalism. They opposed the U.S. occupation of what they saw as their sovereign land (silly them!) so they lashed out in the most meaningful way they could: at the "collaborators" in their midst aiding and abetting the occupying, colonial power. It's basic insurgency doctrine, folks. In my experience, "religious fanaticism" is the veneer that some in Iraq, and even more in the West, use to cover what is essentially the struggle to get out from under the thumb of a strongman.
    ...
    I saw this dynamic when I was an interrogator in Iraq. Coalition forces would arrest an insurgent, humiliate him in front of his family, keep him in prison for months, and then release him without charges. In the meantime he learned to hate us (even if he hadn't before) and, more importantly, his family learned to hate us. While he was learning to hate us, he was in a population that was uniquely qualified to fan the flames of his hatred and teach him how he might better act on it. Meanwhile his family and close friends were now easy targets for recruitment. In getting rid of one "terrorist," we created several.

    On delusion fed by propaganda:
    The Myth of AQI
    Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military's estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.
    The view that AQI is neither as big nor as lethal as commonly believed is widespread among working-level analysts and troops on the ground. A majority of those interviewed for this article believe that the military's AQI estimates are overblown to varying degrees. If such misgivings are common, why haven't doubts pricked the public debate? The reason is that alternate views are running up against an echo chamber of powerful players all with an interest in hyping AQI's role.
    ...
    AQI's presence is tolerated by the country's Sunni Arabs, historically among the most secular in the Middle East, because they have a common enemy in the United States. Absent this shared cause, it's not clear that native insurgents would still welcome AQI forces working to impose strict sharia. In Baghdad, any near-term functioning government will likely be an alliance of Shiites and Kurds, two groups unlikely to accept organized radical Sunni Arab militants within their borders. Yet while precisely predicting future political dynamics in Iraq is uncertain, one thing is clear now: the continued American occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda's best recruitment tool, the lure to hook new recruits. As RAND's Ali said, "What inspires jihadis today is Iraq."

    Five years ago, the American public was asked to support the invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to al-Qaeda. Today, the erroneous belief that al-Qaeda's franchise in Iraq is a driving force behind the chaos in that country may be setting us up for a similar mistake.



    Parent
    Catch a clue. (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    Blowing up mosques and randomly killing women and children is not elimnating collaborators. It is an attempt to terrorize the general population into  accepting domination by whatever sect is murdering innocent people on that partiular day.

    Can you say ( repeat after me ) "Islamofacists?" That's who you have no matter what name they use.

    BTW - If this is your best source no wonder you don't know what's happening.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    We should NOT be randomly killing women and children in Iraq.

    It looks bad to do that. Iraqis don't like it. At all. They fight back. They kill American soldiers. And they kill collaborators.

    Catch a clue, ppj: The facts remain, which you conveniently ignore....

    ...that 1) before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth, 2) the daily horror show that Iraqis live through and die in DID NOT exist before the invasion, 3) that if Iraqis have sectarian differences and kill each other in a civil war, it is their civil war, and neither The US nor any other country has any more right to intervene for your benefit than any other more powerful country had the right to intervene in the American Civil War for their benefit, 4) ALL of the justifications for the invasion were outright lies, 5) the stated goal for the invasion, the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party government, was accomplished within a few weeks of the invasion, and then instead of leaving after "mission" had been accomplished Bush proceeded to begin was has become a murderous 4 year (so far) occupation that has absolutely destroyed Iraqi society, 6) Iraq was relatively stable for the first few months after the invasion but has continually destabilized further and further the longer the occupation, which WAS NOT a stated goal, continues, 7) more Iraqis have died under and as a direct result of that occupation than Japanese who were killed in both of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 8)) All that American "help" has ever done for Iraq is make the situation worse. Continually. Never better. Only worse.
    ...
    The vast majority of Iraqis DO NOT want US troops occupying their country.

    Iraqis now tell you things like: "As to Saddam bad though he was your country is far worse",

    and "All I care about is that your country has its troops in my land raping its people, raping its resources, slaughtering our children, and defiling our Holy Places. The puppet government that rode in behind American tanks cannot pass the laws their American masters so desperately desire passed and is close to collapse.... There is only one measure of progress that matters in Irak and that is the progress in chewing the invader forces into pieces and then spitting them out. Progress on that is excellent."

    Catch a clue, ppj... if you are capable of it.

    Parent
    Pre-Invasion Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    Video: People on an Iraqi street, before they were made so happy by George W. Bush's 2003 liberation.

    There isn't a lot to say. Watch the video...

    Parent

    Got any videos of the rape rooms? (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    Villages being gassed? People being fed through industrial plastic shredders??

    Parent
    We certainly have videos (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    after the rape rooms under went new management....

    you really want to go here Jim... I mean, I wouldn't think you would want to start a discussion about Lyndie et. al.

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    the Jose Padilla interogation video the government "lost" just before his "trial".

    Some war on terror. I guess they can always fall back on the incompetency defense again, though.


    Parent

    Bolly B (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:08:16 PM EST
    I have never had a problem with punishing wrong doers.

    And I ask you bring some evidence to the table, or shall I call you Squeak 2??

    Parent

    As you Like it (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    So you do dare to go there.

    As you like it

    Warning: the above links are not workplace friendly  or suitable for young children.

    Parent

    This is the dumbest statement of the (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth,

    past 100 years.

    And you keep repeating it.

    hehe

    Parent

    You're back (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    You don't have to pretend. (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth,

    Tehe

    Parent

    You mean you're NOT pretending? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    Well... I won't pretend to be surprised.

    Parent
    Believe me. You don't have to pretend. (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth,


    Parent
    Works for me... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    I won't pretend to be surprised when you say you're not just pretending to be stupid.

    Parent
    You don't have to pretend (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth,

    and we have what you wrote right there in front of everyone...

    ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED....

    hehe

    Parent

    You're just not getting it, are you? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:09:23 PM EST
    You've sold me. Congratulations. I believe you're not pretending.

    I'll take your advice and not pretend to be surprised.

    Happy now?

    Parent

    Getting it?? Me? (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    before the invasion Iraq was one of the most advanced societies  on earth

    Everyone is getting it.

    Tehehehe

    Parent

    What everyone ::gets::, ppj (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    is that you are babbling with no intention of contribution or discourse, are utterly unable to face the reality of the debacle you still cheer, and are reduced to nothing more than avoidance, denial, and empty headed trolling.

    tehehehe, indeed...

    Beyond pitiful.

    Parent

    oh dear (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    someone's been reading Christopher Hitchens with a hefty dose of anti-nausea medication

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    Too bad it wasn't thorazine...

    Parent
    Has it occured to you that the majority of Iraqi's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:41:10 AM EST
    don't want us there? Whether or not we are there to help them become "a funtioning democrary" or to "rid the world of a madman" or  "WMD".

    Parent
    Hello Molly. (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:25:08 AM EST
    Doesn't  make any difference. We are there. If they want us gone then they should be helping themeselves by helping us get rid of the terrorists.

    Of course based on the Left's record in Vietnam, all those civilians being killed now by the terrorists, and all those that will be killed if we follow the Demo/Left's advice and surrender and leave, or of no consequence. Last time it was a couple of million. Wonder what it will be this time around??

    Parent

    You 've been schooled on this before (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:05:51 AM EST
    More people died or were left homeless while conservatives insisted we stay in Vietnam. Less people died and were left homeless after we left. That is an inconvenient fact you consistently choose to ignore apparantly because it destroys your argument.

    Its clear conservatives and their social liberal ally who  basis his vote on national security  don't care about the dead in Vietnam or Iraq. They only care about making polticial points.

    Iraq is the GOP war (and the war of their social liberal ally who  basis his vote on national security). It will always be their war and its costs will always be taxed to them. Who lost Iraq? They did.

    And why doesn't it make any difference? There is nothing forcing us to be there (other than the madman occupying the Oval Office and his few supporters).  Terrorists in Iraq is but a fraction of the groups in Iraq. It is a civil war Jim. AQI is between 8% to 15% of the groups fighting in Iraq. Have you run out of honest arguments?

    Parent

    And you won't look in the mirror. (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    It was the Left's demonstrations that convinced a defeated North to continue fighting.

    The Left can not rewrite history in this matter.

    Parent

    And you know this how? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:26:40 AM EST
    And the answer is.... (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    By reading Bui Tin.

    AS AN OFFICER and a journalist for the North Vietnamese army newspaper, Bui Tin...He was one of the first high-ranking communists to enter Saigon when the government of South Vietnam collapsed in 1975.....In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection....

    And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.
    Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey
    Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.

    And your next question is????

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    the PR guy for the North Vietnamese army --

    have you no skepticism sir?  Have you, at last, no skepticism whatsoever?


    Parent

    aj (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975

    Just another general staff nobody.

    tehehehe

    What class was that??

    Parent

    Yawn (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:00:32 PM EST
    Mr. Credibility (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:51:47 PM EST
    Jim used to make up stories -- or parrot people who made up stories -- about having access to Gen Giaps personal memoirs before he was called on it a few times and ran and hid (cut 'n ran) rather than facing the music.

    This little tap dance that he does periodically about "Hanoi Jane" etc is just a Talk Radio-derived tape he has running in his head about the loss of U.S prestige in a war he, Shrub, Cheney, Rush, et al, all ducked out on.

    Just plain pathetic.

    Parent

    Jondee is funning us.... again.. (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    Jim used to make up stories -- or parrot people who made up stories -- about having access to Gen Giaps personal memoirs before he was called on it a few times and ran and hid (cut 'n ran) rather than facing the music.

    You're making things up again. Are you squeaky's evil twin??

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    BTW - I notice that you don't deny the accuracy. And I'm not even trying to write for TNR!

    hehe


    Parent

    If someone links (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    to you quoting his "memoirs" are you going to run and hide again?

    I seem to remember you telling everyone here to "read them".

    Of course you never said it. And Sen Craig never tapped anyone on the foot.lol

    Parent

    Proof (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    Proof? Are you daft?? (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    Now this is what Jondee wrote:

    If someone links (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    to you quoting his "memoirs" are you going to run and hide again?

    I seem to remember you telling everyone here to "read them".

    Now the following is what Squeaky links to in what he calls "proof." Note that nowhere do I refer to General Giap, much less his memoirs. The author, Bin Tui makes one reference to Giap, and it is a most telling one.

    So thanks guys for reposting my previous post. I surely appreciate it.

    Now, go look under incompetentance in the dictionary and I am sure you will find your picture..

    Tehehehe

    A Day of Protest | 127 comments (127 topical)
    [new] Re: A Day of Protest (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    cpinva writes:

        "the tet offensive of jan., 68, proved, beyond all doubt, that the u.s. intelligence services had no clue whatever. that was the true lesson of that engagement."

    The real question isn't whether what "intelligence" knew, but did you win? Let's see what someone from North Vietnam says, not what the MSM and Walter Cornkite said.

        "In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.

    And if you still don't think morale is important, try the below:

        Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor."

    Link



    Parent
    I love it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    the fact that the Vietnamses had been fighting for their independence -- promised by Roosevelt, reneged on by Truman -- for 100 years provided no impetus like "the Left's demonstrations."

    Only a graduate of Dittohead U. could have insights like that.

    Parent

    And if (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    Jim had his way they wouldnt be allowed to write it at all.

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    Heh and interesting.

    I had no idea that Roosevelt promised a French possession their freedom. Much less Truman.

    And, of coutse, they got their freedom. Those who wanted to be communists had the  North, and those who didn't had the South.

    BTW - Could we see some proof on that claim?

    Parent

    What's the matter? (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    Fresh out of proof??

    Tehehe...he

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:42:34 AM EST
    Koolaid is you.

    What part of "Bush unleashed the dogs of hell in Iraq and now there is no possible way to put them back in the bottle without 400,000 American troops on the ground" don't you get?

    Parent

    aj (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    400,000?

    Heh.

    I am tempted to say "whatever it takes," but General Petraeus says a considerable smaller number..

    Of course I am sure you have a lengthy and impressive military resume...

    West Point Class of.......??

    Parent

    We been through the military record before -- (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by aj12754 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:27:17 AM EST
    get a new gig.

    Parent
    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    The mating call (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    of Chickenhawkus Americanus.

    Parent
    I did my 10 and you did none. (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    Shameful, isn't it?? Try to suck it up and take it like a man. You probably wouldn't have made it through basic even if you had volunteered..

    Tehehe

    Parent

    Where'd you get that (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    "suck it up.." line from, Sen Craig?

    You went in an ignorant, xenophobic, nincompoop and came out one. So much for the value of "service".

    Tear yourself away from Hannity and colmes for a few minutes and read the Vietnam section of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly for more on Roosevelt and Truman vis a vis Vietnam.

    Parent

    Tehehe (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    Suck it up?? (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    Don't actually know. In my youth it would have meant drinking a milk shake.

    When did you first hear it??

    Parent

    Jondee finally tells us how he feels (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    about military service to the country.

    Where'd you get that (5.00 / 2) (#113) by jondee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:55:04 AM EST

    "suck it up.." line from, Sen Craig?
    You went in an ignorant, xenophobic, nincompoop and came out one. So much for the value of "service".

    I respond:

    So much for the value......? I see that Moveon's attack has lowered the standards and encouraged you to say what you feel about military service to the country.

    Parent

    You're not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    a walking advertisment yourself, Jim.

    What I think is that you place more value in the clothes than in what the person does in them.

    Make any headway in reducing the area of what you dont know in history yet; i.e., Roosevelt, Truman and Vietnam?

    Parent

    You know that's not true pal..... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    You know we ain't leaving Iraq no matter what happens to the murderous foreign terrorists, Iraqi insurgents, and whoever else.

    We'll leave when we tire of our guys getting picked off a few at a time, or we'll never leave.  

    Parent

    Smirk (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:40:04 PM EST
    Liberingrates (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    Patrick Cockburn writes about the people who are supposed to be dancing in the street because we liberated them. Oh, and these ingrates are not remotely connected to al-Qaida
    Ten days after President George Bush clasped his hand as a symbol of America's hopes in Iraq, the man who led the US-supported revolt of Sunni sheikhs against al-Qa'ida in Iraq was assassinated.....

    ......On Monday General Petraeus told the US Congress that Anbar province was "a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose al-Qa'ida and reject its Taliban-like ideology"......

    .....But President Bush's highly publicised visit to Anbar may well have been Abu Risha's death knell. There are many Sunni who loathe al-Qa'ida, but very few who approve of the US occupation. By giving the impression that Abu Risha was one of America's most important friends, Mr Bush ensured that some of the most dangerous men in the world would try to kill him.

    Patrick Cockburn

    Parent

    Saudi oil money buying America friends (none / 0) (#18)
    by Aaron on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    The alliance in Anbar province is based on dollars, US dollars provided by the Saudis to the various tribal leaders in the region, that's how we got that support.  These leaders will remain our friends only as long as that money continues to flow.  And you can bet that the Saudis are getting money under the table from the White House, to help offset the enormous expense of buying that loyalty.

    The value of the US dollar is now being undermined by the nut in the White House, the dollar has fallen once again, to less than two thirds the value of one euro.  George W. Bush will bankrupt this country and everyone in it in order to keep his messianic "belief" alive, he has lost touch with reality and should rightly be removed before he can do any more damage.  One more year of this president is going to send our economy spiraling into recession, possibly even depression.

    Simply put he's a madman, and he'll take us all down with him if we allow it.  

    Parent

    Aaron (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    Actually a weak dollar helps our exports and reduces the trade imbalance.

    Now go beat him up  over something that might make sense.

    Parent

    BTW - Your proof if this is???? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    The alliance in Anbar province is based on dollars, US dollars provided by the Saudis to the various tribal leaders in the region,


    Parent
    I don't understand. What is with ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    ...you silly liberals? The President said he's going to have 5700 troops home for Christmas. That's 700 more than Senator Warner asked for. You're just never satisfied.

    Really??!? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    What a guy that Bush is. Jeeze. And I forgot to bring flowers to throw.

    Will it be ok if I just drop a few roses? ;-)

    Parent

    You silly conservatives are never informed. (none / 0) (#10)
    by bare ruined choirs on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    The reason those aforementioned troops are coming home is BECAUSE THEY LEGALLY HAVE TO. There deployment is up, so without extending (AGAIN) deployment times they can't stay. On top of that we don't have the troops to replace them. This is NOT news; anyone informed on the subject knew this was coming, and that it was not Bush's OR Patraeus' decision.

    Parent
    MB can't help it, bare. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:18:20 PM EST
    He's as conservative and pro war as they can get. ;-)

    Parent
    I couldn't stomach (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    the idea of watching him.  Did he say anything surprising?

    What did who say? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:13:42 PM EST
    Good point..... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    whatever he said (I couldn't stomach a viewing either), it's not him saying it.  He's just the dummy, moving his mouth to the words of the ventriliquist.

    Parent
    I can't watch... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    that clown either. The rage just boils.

    So I watched Woody Woodpecker cartoons instead. You know, I think Woody has at least a fifty point IQ advantage on the Chimp.

    Parent

    Oh, come on! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    Why insult Woody like that? It's at least 110%, no?

    Parent
    HAH!! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    You're right. Woody is very clever, while the Chimp is a very, very dull boy indeed.

    Parent
    Like the other one in this thread? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    Nice job John. Short and to the point, and bound to get replayed, as it should. Now, will anyone listen?

    Give this man the job.

    Once again, Michael Ware... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    ...a war correspondent in the old school mold, calls out Dubya's empty b.s. for exactly what it is, in the most stark and informed terms.  

    Looks like (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    the view from the actual street in Baghdad is a little less rosy than from a heavily fortified military base in Anbar province. Who knew?

    The Iraqis call it perpetual war and occupation. Bush calls it democracy. Time for Congress to call it off.

    Parent

    And you have seen neither. (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    You have? (none / 0) (#119)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    No ideas again PPJ in your response, just a demand others adhere to requirements you yourself never satisfy. So typically Republican, Craig-like even.

    Fact is Bush is wrong about progress in Iraq, or why didn't he go to the capital of the world's shiniest, newest democracy. If you read something other than JihadWatch or the ravings of DH and his ilk you'd know.

    Parent

    dadler (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    You see it works like this.

    If Ware says anything good Anderson will never, never, never speak to him again.

    Parent

    Your worst response ever (none / 0) (#100)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    Your reactionary denial of as credible a source on the ground in Iraq as you can get, a genuinely courageous war correspondent...oh, what's the point?  

    Have a good one, Jim.  

    Parent

    dadler (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    Your opinion on Ware and the MSM in general defines the gulf.

    Need I remind you of TNR? Of the photo shopped pictures from Lebabnon? From the reports from Iraq using "sringers" that haven't been vetted??

    Here. Read and learn.

    Parent

    Pictures (none / 0) (#1)
    by bare ruined choirs on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    The pictures behind him of Laura and the twins are hilarious.

    Another Korea and Germany (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:52:02 PM EST
    A long term committment is what Bush wants.  This is what they wanted from day one.  Why would you be building the largest embassy in the world and airbases if you were just there for the short term.  The only card the Democrats have is just don't vote period on the funding.  Or vote on limited funds to bring the troops home.  Let Bush veto it and keep sending it back to him over and over again and don't give in.  As we get closer to the election in 08 then the republicans will jump on board (of course for the wrong reasons, becasue they would just be worried for their polictal lives) and over ride the veto. Don't give in just keep sending the funding bill with a timeline over and over again back to Bush.

    Giuliani that lying filth (none / 0) (#14)
    by Aaron on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    I just watched Giuliani on Larry King, and he was of course praising everything the president said.

    I almost choked on my chicken Philly when I heard him say that more people were dying from Al Qaeda back in the 90s during the Clinton administration.  He insinuated that back then Al Qaeda was stronger, and that George has been responsible for getting things under control.  This garbage would be laughable if I didn't realize the people in America actually believed this crap.

    Giuliani is dangerous, another psychopath with designs on the White House.

    Uncalled for (none / 0) (#20)
    by bare ruined choirs on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:49:55 PM EST
    All right, I don't know if anyone knows about this or not. I don't even know if Edwards' camp knows about this or not, but I haven't heard anything about it. Go to JohnEdwards.com and go past the Email sign up page. On the front page there should be a slide show of different headlines. Front and not quite center. Put your cursor in the top right corner of the picture and a box should appear with controls. Pause the slide show and skip to the picture of Edwards, Clinton, and Obama at YearlyKos. The caption underneath is : No Money from Washingtion Lobbyists. Take a look at Obama and tell me if you see what I see.

    Yep (none / 0) (#22)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    You do see what you think you see. I don't know if he really means though...

    Parent
    Edwards's (none / 0) (#25)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:53:45 PM EST
    response was spot on. Called the liar a liar. Demanded Congress act, not equivocate and cave.

    The cowboy in chief's address was about the most cynical garbage imaginable. While he prattles about Iraqi democracy his crony Hunt is cozying up to the Kurds and their oil, with nary a concern over who in Iraq gets what.

    Now Bush has got religion about keeping Congress in the loop: "Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress." This is laughable. He's not even good at fear mongering and using the GWOT as a political bludgeon any more.

    yeah (none / 0) (#26)
    by bare ruined choirs on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:15:31 AM EST
    It's true. Is it just me or did he look mildly frightened tonight?

    Parent
    He has a lot to be (none / 0) (#28)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:31:46 AM EST
    scared of, i.e. the moral weight and personal responsibility for such a horrendous, deadly, fiscally catastrophic adventure.
    For me his odd look was more Stepford President than anything, he read as if he himself couldn't quite believe the nonsense he was uttering.

    Parent
    Tell Me More Lies About Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:00:20 AM EST
    Quick thoughts about Bush's speech before I have to run to work.

    He says the reason that we are reducing back to the pre-surge level is because of the success of the surge.  Actually even before the surge it was known that we would have to reduce because of the stress on manpower.  (will provide links later)

    Bush once again tries to link Iraq with 9/11.  "If we were to be driven out of Iraq, . . . And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people."  Of course if anyone says that he is doing this he would deny he ever said such a thing.

    Fact check on the 36 nations of the coalition of the willing.  Per NPR there were originally 40 and there are now half that.

    BUSHBOY'S BIG SUCCESS! (none / 0) (#48)
    by patriot76 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    Here's a photograph of Bushboy thinking up his new slogan for Iraq: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/

    I'm tired of the Democrats (none / 0) (#55)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    Bush is consistent.  He supports the war no matter the polls and opinion.  We all know where he stands.  You can disagree with him etc... and that is fair but he is a given.

    As for the democrats there are simply no excuses anymore.

    Let's recap...

    The majority of the dems supported the war going in.

    They supported the war until the elections of 2004 when they suddenly decided Bush didn't know what he was doing and started the ridiculous mantra that they were lied too.

    After the 2004 elections they then started to demanding a change of course etc... and you started to get the first signs of them taking up the netroots call for  withdrawl and ran on that to win back congress in 2006.

    It's been almost a year and nothing has happened.   They make the same comments, the same ridiculous points and nothing changes.    When push comes to shove they don't stand up to the president.

    Either they want to stop the war or they don't.

    They are a disgrace frankly.  If they are honest in their opposition to the war I could disagree with them but respect them.   Some democrats have been consistent granted but the majority and the leaders of the party have been frankly dispicable.   How can anyone argue that they are not playing politics with this issue?

    You activists need to stop worrying about Bush.  You know what he's going to do.   He hasn't wavered one bit.   The dems are responsible for this war still being here.  I'm still behind it but for those who aren't there is only one party to blame.

    Good points..... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    I can't argue with any of that.  

    The Dems are definitely a disgrace, and Bush (the face of the war machine) is terribly, consistently wrong.

    You're right, at least the Repubs support the occupation in actions and words, while the Dems support the occupation in actions and denounce it in words....disgraceful indeed.  

    Parent

    Thanks kdog (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    While I definately don't agree with the anti war crowd most in it are consistent.

    The dems in power however are too chicken to back up the words they feed their "net-roots".

    Just as lame as republicans who campaign on moral issues and then get caught in men's bathrooms.

    Parent

    I hear that brother..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:57:10 PM EST
    A pox on both their houses.  That's why I refuse to vote for anybody with a "D" or an "R" after their name.

    Fool me once...

    Parent