« Zawahiri Calls for Jihad in Somalia | Main | Democrat Rep. William Jefferson Does It Again »

No Surprise Here: Democrats Are Against More Troops in Iraq

Newly sworn-in Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sent President Bush a letter today saying that a troop surge in Iraq isn't a good idea, which confirms for me that it is a good idea. Here's a portion of their letter:

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.


[snip]

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

In other words: surrender, George.

AJ Strata reminds us of the Democrats' Contract with al Qaeda that he wrote last year and notes that today's letter from Pelosi and Reid fulfills point number 7:

SEVENTH, in an effort to demonstrate our sincere apologies for the actions of President Bush towards Al Qaeda, we plan to return the State of Iraq to the despot dictator of Al Qaeda's choice by calling for the immediate withdrawal of our military forces to the safety of European soil. We encourage Al Qaeda to do what they please with the Iraqi people.

Update: Bloomberg notes that Harry Reid supported a troop surge just a week ago.


Comments (97)

I bet Charlie Rangel's piss... (Below threshold)
the wolf:

I bet Charlie Rangel's pissed that he won't get his draft after all.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.... (Below threshold)
Insomniac:

Reid was for it before he was against it. There seems to be a lot of that going around...

So is 88% of the American p... (Below threshold)
Adam:

So is 88% of the American people!! Only 12% support more troops. CBS says they only have 9,000 troops to use anyway, not much a surge, not even a bump!

As a matter of curiosity: ... (Below threshold)
sam:

As a matter of curiosity: What happens to the letters that congressmen send to the president? Do they get a reply? I am sure the lettes get archived, but is there any official protocol?

We encourage Al Qa... (Below threshold)
Larkin:
We encourage Al Qaeda to do what they please with the Iraqi people.

This is nothing more than a scare tactic that has absolutely no connection with reality. Al Qaeda has only a small base of support among the 20% of Iraq's population that is Sunni. The 80% Shiites and Kurds are implacably hostile to Al Qaeda. They aren't simply going to roll over and let Al Qaeda take over.

In addition, there are only around 1-2,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq to begin with. How exactly is such a small group of fighters going to subdue a country of 26 million people? We couldn't even do it with 140,000 of the best soldiers in the world backed up by the most technologically superior weaponry ever known to man. And yet, Al Qaeda is supposed to do it with it with a few improvised explosive devices?

C'mon Wizbang. You guys are better than this. Let's put this fearmongering aside and have a real debate on the merits of increasing our troop levels.

Ok Kim, dazzle me with your... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

Ok Kim, dazzle me with your insight on how sending more troops to Iraq will make one single bit of difference.

Here's a hint, we should have listened to the brass before invading. You know, the career soliders who said taking Iraq would need at least 250000 troops who got brushed aside and sidelined because that might interfere with Rummy's glorioius vision of a hi tech, streamlined army.

And of course there was that little comb sucking dwarf Paul Wolfowitz who when before congress and said 100000 troops would be 'wildly off the mark' for keeping order in Iraq.

Don't you guys ever get sick of being so wrong all the time?

Victor Davis Hanson over at... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO today, delivers a good analysis of this "bump" in troop levels and what it could mean and should accomplish. (I believe you have to subscribe to NRO.)

Define: "taking Iraq"... (Below threshold)
yo:

Define: "taking Iraq"

Cornhole, er, Cornwell (sam... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Cornhole, er, Cornwell (same difference),

Other than dazzling us with your scatalogical and conspiratoiral view on historical events why don't YOU present an argument for why sending more troops is such a bad idea. (For the record: I also think it's a poor idea to send more troops IF we do not expand the parameters of operations; that is, dismantaling Shiite militias (incluiding capturing/killing al Sadr), laying an ironfist down on Sunni Baathists and thugs, closing the Iraqi siide of the Syrian and Iranian borders, and all of it with a decidedly more offensive bent--no presence patrols or other tactics that have not worked. Let our men and women do the job they were sent to do--and that is, kick ass and come home.)

Oh, now ... Peter, that's u... (Below threshold)
yo:

Oh, now ... Peter, that's unfair and you know it.

It's painfully obvious that the left is incapable of generating any coherent concepts of their own. All they can do is sit back and critique.

yo,I know. I guess... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

yo,

I know. I guess I haven't learned much, now have I? lol

It's painfully obv... (Below threshold)
Davebo:
It's painfully obvious that the left is incapable of generating any coherent concepts of their own. All they can do is sit back and critique.

Well, you made it pretty easy to come up with critiques.

Oh, peter, poor dear. Have... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

Oh, peter, poor dear. Have to make fun of my name, since you don't have a decent rebuttal to my assertions. That's fine, I know you and the average posters here are still sulking like 3 year olds about losing the elections, and you are sulking even more watching Nancy Pelosi become Speaker. Hey, for bonus fun, why don't you use that term "san francisco values" a few times to make you feel better about losing, mmmkay hon?

And yo, guess what buddy, we got the reigns now, so we will decide the policies and let your ilk sit on the sidelines for a while. You guys get to be the sore loser party now, screaming bloody murder about being in the minority.

Well, you made it pretty ea... (Below threshold)
yo:

Well, you made it pretty easy to come up with critiques.
Posted by: Davebo


Exactly my point.

Peter F proposes something ... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

Peter F proposes something that could possibly work--if we had done it 3 years ago with an extra 150,000 troops. Now, it's too late. Maliki is just a puppet now and Sadr is running as show (as demonstrated by Saddam's execution). Sadr will never agree to allow a large increase in US trooops aimed at destroying his militia.

Bush's plan is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for Iraq onto the Democrats. For 3 and 1/2 years he hasn't been denied a single troop or a single dollar to pursue this nationbuilding misadventure in Iraq. Now, suddenly, 3 and 1/2 years into this he's going to come forward and say he needs another 20,000 troops. Give me a break.

What's all the more remarkable about this story is that the policy review that led to this decision began in August of 2006! It took 6 months for Bush to finally make a decision after 3 and 1/2 years of his "deer in the headlights" approach to Iraq: afraid to escalate and afraid to withdraw.

He's not the decider, he's the indecider. I say it's time to take away the keys.

And for Peter, whose name i... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

And for Peter, whose name is also a slang for male genitalia (what's the difference?), I'll say it again. Unless there are 250000 troops in Iraq, like there should have been from the beginning, sending 20000 more will do not a single thing except give the bad guys more targets. It will not stop the civil war, it will not stop Sadr (yea, go ahead and take him out. You think the violence is bad now...) it won't change the perception that we are occupiers, it won't do a damn thing positive for the US.

A new poll came out that showed about 25% of the country still thinks Bush's Iraq policy is working. Now I know where that 25% resides.\

Toodles, all.

"And for Peter, whose name ... (Below threshold)
yo:

"And for Peter, whose name is also a slang for male genitalia (what's the difference?)"

And Cornwell chastised me for making fun of Bahrney Fwank's lisp.

Classic.

"That's fine, I know you an... (Below threshold)
yo:

"That's fine, I know you and the average posters here are still sulking like 3 year olds about losing the elections, and you are sulking even more watching Nancy Pelosi become Speaker."

I don't see anyone around here "sulking" ... at least not in the same manner that the left has been sulking since 1994, and I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

I thought a Dem controlled Congress would bring about a return to civility and all of that lovey-dovey crap that was promised during the mid-terms.

Guess not.

What's a matter, yoyo, can'... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

What's a matter, yoyo, can't take a little sand getting slung back in your face? You guys sure can dish it out, but man you scream like little girls when someone does it to you. I was making a point to Peter, and I didn't call him Dick did I?

But continue to harp on the name calling, yo, and bypass my assertions in my post which you obviously cannot repsond to in a civil, rational manner. How's it feel to be the last one holding the torch for Dear Leader?

I don't see anyone aroun... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

I don't see anyone around here "sulking" ... at least not in the same manner that the left has been sulking since 1994, and I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

Yes, try and turn it around and live in denial again. This isn't 1994, it isn't 2000, it's 2007. PLease try and join the present if you can, yo. Of course YOU don't see anything here, do you, because you wouldn't acknowledge it if it was staring you right in your mug.

Cornhole (sorry, if the nam... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Cornhole (sorry, if the name fits)

First, the reason I'm sticking with the cornhole reference is because, well, when you reduce to calling someone a "little comb sucking dwarf" (straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, I assume), I figure I'd stoop to a level you could understand.

And no, I didn't address you assertions because from the get-go i'm sure you're someone who's been against the war and no amount of troops--be it 250,000 or less than a 100,000--would have been to your liking, so what's the point in addressing it. Which pretty much goes for your subsequent posts thereafter, too.

Finally, it's not that I didn't get your genitalia reference. It was quite clever. But I'm just guessing that you're probably more of a Two-Pump Chump given your short, meaningless and forgettable posts.

Troll.

Oh, I can take the sand, ch... (Below threshold)
yo:

Oh, I can take the sand, champ. But, it's hard to take such sand tossing seriously when it's dripping with hypocrisy.

And, no .. you didn't directly call Peter a dick, but the message was definitely implied. That weak-assed argument won't fly.

Maybe you didn't see my question to you asking you to define "taking Iraq."

...I certainly don't see... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

...I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

Well, yo, you should check out cry baby Rob LA Ca on the "Pelosi Drink with power" posting. He's making a real spectacle of himself. Here's a taste:

"Rhon, Fuck you you lying POS. Democrats are the party felons and criminal frauds and Pelosi got busted trying to give these criminals prominant posts.You are a bunch of infantile assholes and lying losers. None of your pathetic lies is going pollish your criminal turds."

... and that's just the beginning.

Lots of that kind of hissy fits here today. Ha ha ha.

"Yes, try and turn it aroun... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Yes, try and turn it around and live in denial again. This isn't 1994, it isn't 2000, it's 2007. PLease try and join the present if you can, yo. Of course YOU don't see anything here, do you, because you wouldn't acknowledge it if it was staring you right in your mug."


Um. Hm.

What I "see" is a troll.

Posted by: hansel2 <p... (Below threshold)
yo:

Posted by: hansel2

I'll give you that. Every site is going to have a few loose cannons; however, to back up my point about the historic cry-babying from left, go here:

www.huffingtonpost.com

Just pick any ol' article at random.

Methinks some wingnuts need... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

Methinks some wingnuts need a nap and women, hence all these muted sexual references. I wonder why is it wingnuts are the first to mention gay sex ala Cornhole. My last name happens to be Cornwell, but that's fine if your manners never left the 8th grade.
And making two pump chump dumps whatever, what is that supposed mean? Oh well, that's what I get for wading over here.

Larkin:What's a... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Larkin:

What's all the more remarkable about this story is that the policy review that led to this decision began in August of 2006! It took 6 months for Bush to finally make a decision after 3 and 1/2 years of his "deer in the headlights" approach to Iraq: afraid to escalate and afraid to withdraw.

Would you rather him making a hasty decision, is that what you're saying? Granted, the tactics in responding to and/or greatly curbing or curtailing the militias, etc. has taken far too long and been too passive, but to critisize the Admin for taking time to consult the DOD, CIA, SD, the ISG and so on is really kind of a cheap shot. Would you rather he just do it willy nilly? Come on...

Bush's plan is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for Iraq onto the Democrats.

What? How? If anything, if this increase in troop levels were to succeed (and we should ALL hope for that!) that would hurt the the Dems chances for the WH in '08 for sure. If it fails, and the Dems have been against it all along, then they can say "See what Bush/Repubs did? We were right. Now who do you want to run the country in '08?" In no way does it shift blame to the Dems. Unless they're afraid it might work...and maybe that's what they're afraid of. But shifting blame? That just doesn't make sense.

If it fails, and the Dem... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

If it fails, and the Dems have been against it all along, then they can say "See what Bush/Repubs did?

So easy for you to think about this in terms of pure politics, Peter. I guess you're not on the front lines, nor do you have family there. This is the stock thinking of the current republican party - and good riddence to them.

Fortunately for us, the current democrats are thinking about the troops who have their lives on the line - and not a political "I told you so." If anything, the democrats are giving Bush a way to say "see, I could have won the war if they gave me 20,000 more troops." if they deny him the funds.

Go ahead and play your little fantasy games while others have to fight for you.

Well, upon viewing the last... (Below threshold)
faboofour:

Well, upon viewing the last day or so of commentary, it sure looks like you got maybe 20 or so nutcases who comment on your bullcrap (like whining about how meany-mouthed those nasty ol' libruls are toward us Right-Thinkin Murkins just before soliciting same towards your newly-labeled Vikid Vitch of the Vest). And when the sane seventy percent notices and shows up to call you on it, you guys go into "must be sock puppets" delusions.

Guys, you really want a "coherent concept?" Here, sad to say, is the only sane solution, like it or not:

(1) Get the US military the heck out of harm's way ASAP,
(2) submit an international apology for our illegal, immoral actions,
(3) allow an international war crimes court to prosecute the archetects and executors of the war,
(4) Have the US pay restitution by engaging for competent (preferably non-US) contractors to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

But since (2), (3) and (4) don't have a snowball's chance in hell of occuring, all the US can do is get it's troops out of the way of the civil war.

All America can do it stop sending its children off to die.

That's your "coherent concept". You got any better ideas, you might want to share them with your Commander-In-Chief.

'Cause evidently he don't give a damn about his citizens.

Only his image.

Your war isn't winnable. And the only people left on the entire planet who don't seem to know this is about 90 million Americans (about 30 percent of the US population, or about 1.4 percent of the population of the Earth).

Wake up, guys.

So let me get this straight... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

So let me get this straight. Bush wants to send over 20,000 more troops, but CBS is reporting that Central Command only has 7,500 to spare. Meanwhile, Bidden is stating that most of Bush's administration is resigned to defeat, and only wants to hold on until a new President has to deal with it.

So what does Bush want to do? Send an Admiral with no middle east experience over to Iraq to lead the Army in a war.

And it is ALL the Democrats fault? Brilliant!

So Kim says in the first pa... (Below threshold)
drlava:

So Kim says in the first paragraph that the surge is a good idea because Dems are against it.

That's what it is with you folks isn't it. No rationale, no reasoning, no insight. Just kill some more pitiful kids in that shithole because the left has been 100% right about this war for 4 years.

You supporters of this travesty are really REALLY sick. I think Kim has actually lost a family member. Dead, gone forever a life wasted in a tragedy pushed by a delusional president and his absolutely ignorant minions.

Shame on you people. 3000 dead so you can try to save face.

And you think sending more troops are gonna make a difference?

Get some help folks...you're hanging by a thread.

You know, Fordrill, et al, ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

You know, Fordrill, et al, I had an impassioned, emotional and very explicative filled response to your post, but then I stopped before I hit "post". Why? I really have too much respect for Jay Tea, Kim, Lorie, Kevin and company (it was so filled explicatives it might have been gotten me banned) to embarass them, myself and my fellow Wizbang readers/followers and stoop any further to entertain your cheap argumentative level, so I stopped. I think they'll appreciate that.

P.S.: I have friends in both the Iraq and Afghan theaters. Two are in the Stryker Brigade out of Ft. Lewis; the other is in Special Forces.

I am not making a value jud... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I am not making a value judgment based on age or military service...I want to make a simple observation...our President is locked into a dogma of nobody understands but me..we can certainly understand that attitude..because.. WE ALL HAVE IT at one time or another...the little difference is...we are not the elected President of the United States..

Ask yourself...what part of the Leadership our President has demonstrated as working in Iraq is working?...

If you can forget any thoughts about evil Dems..wingbats..whatever...as an intelligent..rational..thinking..person...
...What has our President looked us in the eye and assured us...has come to pass?

Everyone reading..and posting here has demonstrated an intelligent concern about the reality around us. We do not..or should not agree..or apoligise for how we feel.

...However,; we should be open to information that conflicts with what we know is right.....by the way...anyone out there willing to pay the over 2.1 billion a week for Iraq with higher taxes?...of course not...let others(our troops) ,ake the freakin' real sacrifices....

Bring'em all home..in health..

Come on Peter, don't be a p... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Come on Peter, don't be a pussy, let them have it. Only a pussy explains his inaction.

Hmm, no, Barney. No, a puss... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hmm, no, Barney. No, a pussy resorts to cheap argumentative tactics ("you're not on the front lines"), name calling (like some cockring calling me "pussy", for example) and acts like a tough guy through a computer screen. Now THAT, my friend, is being a pussy.

Peter - Bush can shift the ... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

Peter - Bush can shift the blame to the Democrats if they are crazy enough to do the will of the American people and deny him the funds necessary to carry out this absurdly nonsensical "surge". He will then claim that he could have "won" the war if only the Democrats (and by association 70% of American people who agree with them) weren't such a bunch of cowards.

And, if by chance, the Dems do let this go through then Bush is well on his way to playing out the clock of his remaining 24 months and dumping this whole friggin' disaster on the next poor SOB who occupies the White House.

This war was lost in the late summer of 2003 when Bremer announced the disbanding of the Iraqi military. It's time to stop pretending we can rewrite the history that has already passed us by. If Bush is serious about restoring security to Iraq then he should be talking about an extra 150-200,000 not 20,000. That's just a PR stunt and you all know it.

I was going to tear Peter a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I was going to tear Peter a new one, with lots of swear words and threats, but than I released that I have too much respect for the 101st Fighting Key Boardist. March On Peter

Hansel2 , quite being a ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hansel2 , quite being a snot nosed little twit. I hardly think my having a heated discussion with Rhon amounts to crying. You must think his words amounted to crying also.

Shame on the democrats for 8 yrs of doing nothing to protect American Citizens and our Soldiers from terrorist attacks. And even more so for not doing a dam thing when Osama was given to Clinton on a platter for fear it might hurt him in the polls.The democrat party and their Media is nothing but a fraud perpetuated by how well their polls tell them their lies are sinking in.Your polls are as bogus as your party . True polls are the ones where 75% of those who voted for democrats don't even know who Plastic Pelosi is. No trick questions , simple yes or no answer without 6 years of lies to influence the response. Like many New yorkers say ing they would vote for Hilary and think she is republican.

Remind me wwwwwwab, who was... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Remind me wwwwwwab, who was the president when the 9/11 and anthrax attacks occured? I'll even give you a clue (lord knows you need one): It was a president who 5 weeks ago had responded to a PDB saying "bin Laden determined to strike in the US" with "You can go now, you've covered your ass."

Don't choke on your Cheetos.

faboofour , Your not an ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

faboofour , Your not an American Citizen so SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your the only child around here, and there are no children in the military stupid. If it's "OUR" War , again , STFU and mind your own business.

Big talk, coming from the b... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Big talk, coming from the basement (or is it the closet Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab).

Stupid little democrat a... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Stupid little democrat admits to tresason.Proof democrats are traitors and not Americans. Get a rope!

"Your war isn't winnable. And the only people left on the entire planet who don't seem to know this is about 90 million Americans (about 30 percent of the US population, or about 1.4 percent of the population of the Earth)."

The Prez has wasted two mon... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The Prez has wasted two months "listening" to outside opinions, and his own military, and the best he can come-up with is the surge? Case and Abs both testified in front of Congress that we tried that, and it did not work than, and wont work now.

I guess Bush will just keep firing staff and commanders until he finds ones that agrees with him

Oh my...way too much rancor... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Oh my...way too much rancor...Let us agree that those of us with opposing views are vistors on a blog we know comimg in we might disagree...we are guests...allowed by Wizbang at this time, freedom of blogs....
Blogs allow us to post...but the individuals who spend the time and money to keep it afloat should not be treated with disrespect....


"To get in the middle of a ... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

"To get in the middle of a civil war with each side intent on fighting it is a mistake".

Charles Krauthammer just said this on Fox. He also pointed out the futility in surging our troops in order to support the government that just turned Saddam's execution into a showcase of sectarian revenge.

The current government of Iraq isn't one that is able or even willing to reconcile the factions of that country. They are simply biding their time so they can build up their strength before they unleash a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Sunnis. It's pure folly for us to be assisting them to do that.

Who was it that was Rapin... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Who was it that was Raping women and getting his pecker pollished before , during and after what at least 6 terrorist attacks? The impeached ,disbarred felon, draft dodging , pardon selling , White House Looting , 9/11 terrorist protecting BJ Clinton.These are undisputable facts . In the words of the unidicted ABSCAM Coconspirator and at the top of the list of most corrupt democrats Jackass Murtha's own words: "NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

YOU LOSE ! CARE TO PLAY AGAIN?

Kim,There were a l... (Below threshold)
John:

Kim,

There were a large number of us protesting the Iraq war before it began.

In my community, we had one group of about 40 people on one side of the street with Support The Troops signs, and on the other side, my side, 40 some people with No Iraq War signs.

This went on for months.

People like you mocked us and laughed at us, and called our patriotism into question.

Well, it was all fun and games until somebody got hurt... This holiday season we passed the 3,000 US casualty mark... More Americans died as a result of our action that died from terrorism during 9/11.

To the extent that one was for the Iraq war, one is also responsible for their proportional share of the deaths of those 3,000 American service members.

Daddy ain't coming home for Christmas, children, so clap lounder. And keep beating the war drum, Kim. Good job there. I hope your family forgives you.


Who was it that was Rapi... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

Who was it that was Raping women and getting his pecker pollished before , during and after what at least 6 terrorist attacks?

Good to know the wingnuts here are fixated on today's problems with today's leaders.

John, the Republicans don't... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

John, the Republicans don't care about 3,000 dead. Remember, more Americans died in other wars, so 3,000 is practically collateral damage (according to Rush, Hannity...).

It is more important for Republicans to deflect responsibility, than admit to any mistakes.

All I have left is that the... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

All I have left is that there is 20% of this nation that simply is stuck on stupid.

Stupid and foolish.

Surrender? Give up? You are really worried about the troops? If you were you;d bring them home.

"It will NEVER be a democra... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"It will NEVER be a democratic nation. NEVER! So GET REAL"!

And the Democrats with their silent partners have been for the last few years and to this day , continue to desparately do every thing they can to see to it that it doesn't. They have staked their polical lives on it and commited treason in doing so .And should the democrats fail to lose the war for our Country before they have a chance to lie and cheat their way into the Presidency they will have no way to defend or deny their traitorous behavior. Kerry commits treason for the third time in his coward ass life and now other democrats have no shame or fear in doing so. Fraud Kerry should have been shot 30 years ago , but because he wasn't the democrat party has been hijacked by a pack of communist's , criminals and oppornunistic unAmerican Traitors. Years ago they would have all been shot for the Traitors they are . There should be no difference today. North Korea has threatened to launch a nuclear strike on American Soil and is testing nuclear weapons it has made thanks to the 4 Billion dollars from BJ Clinton and two nuclear reactors. That you very much you incometant red nosed cock sucker.

Even Oliver North is agains... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

Even Oliver North is against this stupid "surge" idea:

"Adding 10,000 or 20,000 more U.S. combat troops -- mostly soldiers and Marines -- isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight -- an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."

Civil, Barney, Cornwell, et... (Below threshold)
John:

Civil, Barney, Cornwell, et al...

Agreed. Sad to see these dead-enders like Rob LA... Still clinging to the debunked Clinton's stole the White House silverware lie... How does anybody change a mind like that? Ugh.

Thanks for trying to educate people, though...

John

Rob, you really need to get... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

Rob, you really need to get over yesterday's news. In case you didn't know, Kerry lost the election and Clinton has been out of office for 6 years. Neither of them set the course for invading Iraq on false premises, okay? Can you think about that for a moment before you unleash another angry rant?

And what is up with being obsessed with Clinton's sex life? You keep using the term BJ clinton, which only says to me you don't get that done to you very much, if at all.

"And the Democrats with ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"And the Democrats with their silent partners have been for the last few years and to this day , continue to desparately do every thing they can to see to it that it doesn't. They have staked their polical lives on it and commited treason in doing so"

Grow up Rob - this conspiracy theory crap is the sign of a sick mind. Can't you see how childish you clowns look spouting this crap?

"Fraud Kerry should have been shot 30 years ago , but because he wasn't the democrat party has been hijacked by a pack of communist's , criminals and oppornunistic unAmerican Traitors."

Get help. You have a sick mind. Take Preistap with you, you're both in desperate need of medication.

Rob LA Ca seems, sadly, typ... (Below threshold)
faboofour:

Rob LA Ca seems, sadly, typical of the thirty percent of the US who simply cannot comes to grips with reality: Finally, albeit (to give them the benefit of the doubt) subconsiously, realizing that they've been lied to over and over again about WMDs, Al-Qaida training camps and "being welcomed as liberators" after "weeks, not months," they find to their horror that all the justifications for the deaths of over three thousand American lives melt away like ice on a skillet. So, instead of directing their anger at the real source of their despair, the leaders they foolishly trusted, they mindlessly attack those who tried to warn them about the insanity of their leaders' actions in the first place.

This will change soon enough.

'Course, there are still plenty of Germans, Italians and Japanese who think they coulda won World War II if they'd just "stayed the course."

Congresswoman Sherri Davis,... (Below threshold)

Congresswoman Sherri Davis, R-CA, Launches Two New "Internet- Only" Talk Shows in 2007

"Talking on Tuesdays" to debut on Tuesdays; "Talking on Thursdays" will broadcast each Thursday. Says Davis: "Expect Some Controversy!"

New York, NY (PRINSIDE) January 5, 2007 -- California Congresswoman Sherri Davis, R-CA, known as the "Ann Coulter of Anaheim" for her fierce opposition to flag-burners and illegal immigrants and her unyielding support for the American family, issued a statement today announcing the debut of two new Internet-only talk shows, "Talking on Tuesdays" and "Talking on Thursdays," to be hosted by herself.

"Talking on Thursdays," which will be broadcast on the Internet each Thursday, will focus on the top political issues of the day. Davis' second show, "Talking on Tuesdays," will be broadcast each Tuesday and will focus on "the lighter side of life": fashion, film, self-improvement -- and tips to viewers on how to acquire the essential "people skills" that are the keys to success in today's service-oriented society.

The two new shows will be produced by cable television's Myron Kempelstein. Davis will moderate both shows, and surprise celebrity guests can be expected. Selections from the shows can be seen at these links. http://youtube.com/watch?v=px3NY_V3M44 http://youtube.com/watch?v=EiW9rueA2IE

Typical topics for Davis' "Talking on Thursdays" show will include inside legislative looks at some of Davis' signature legislation -- dubbed "Sherri's War of Ideas" by her friends in the American media. "'Sherri's War of Ideas' is a pure war of ideas that seeks to portray Democratic proposals as "pro-spending, pro-tax - or just plain unworkable," notes Davis.

In her premiere edition of "Talking on Thursdays," Davis says she plans to go on the attack against the Democratic War in Iraq -- and offer some sensible solutions. "Nancy (Pelosi) and I have been engaging in a number of think-tank-style discussions on the issue of the Democratic War in Iraq - and I think you'll be surprised at the solution we've come up with," says Davis. "Most likely the solution we will propose in my premiere show will take the form of some kind of a 'Grand Bargain' - but you'll just have to tune in to see what our solution to the war really is!"

Davis also promises her fans that a "special edition" of "Talking on Thursdays" will pay tribute to the many legislative contributions of fellow Californian Bill Thomas, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. "Around the House, Bill was known as 'Compassion With a Calculator,'" says Davis. "And there is even talk of legislatively renaming the famous Donner Pass after Bill -- and calling it 'Bill Thomas Way.' Because the story of the Donner Pass is really a story about people helping people, people helping people, and that's what Bill was all about as well."

With her second show, "Talking on Tuesdays," Davis steps into the television shoes vacated by the recent cancellation of the "Megan Mullally Show." "It's a much lighter show than my 'Talking on Thursdays' show," says Davis. "In one sense, it's almost frivolous."


Among the treats in store for viewers of "Talking on Tuesdays" are dramatic readings by Davis herself from Jack Welch's best-selling book, "Winning," and fashion tips on how to attain the "Nancy Pelosi look" on a shoestring. "Not to give too much away, but instead of wearing an 18-inch strand of Tahitian pearls like Nancy does," advises Davis, "you can wear a 16-inch strand -- and slouch." Davis will also review Mel Gibson's new film, "Apocalypto."

Davis - who heads the House Entertainment Committee - has become known as the "Voice of Hollywood" in the House, and recently proposed increased trade subsidies to promote America's D-List celebrities to the world market. "Early market research shows a substantial demand for Wilmer Valderamma in nations such as Pakistan and Bolivia," notes Davis. "And Kathy Griffin would do very well in Palestine and some of the bordering states, if only we had a way to market her there. And just imagine where Carrot Top could go." It is "small baby steps" such as these that will help America solve its ever-growing and increasingly menacing foreign trade deficit, says Davis.

Despite the fame and notoriety that typically accompanies the launch of any new broadcast venture, Davis promises not to allow the spotlights to distract her from her legislative mission this year, noting that she has already introduced five Constitutional amendments so far this year. "And there are more to come!" says Davis with her trademark grin.

Congresswoman Davis, a rising star of the Republican Party, has been gaining traction in political popularity polls recently through a series of think-tank-style town hall meetings. Most recently, Davis told a cheering crowd in rural New Hampshire about her proposed "Bible Repatriation Act," (BRA), which she intends to push through in the coming legislative sessions in order to bring control of the Bible back into the hands of America by requiring that all Bibles be printed in this country.

"Just yesterday, a constituent sent me a copy of a Bible he had acquired that was printed in a foreign country -- and I can't tell you which country because of National Security reasons," says Davis. "While reading this particular Bible, he discovered that in Kings and then again in Deuteronomy, the sections of the Bible that talk about 'approved entrances' to the human body had been altered somehow during the printing process to include new, unapproved entrances to the human body that the Lord in his wisdom never intended to open up for use. And it is safe to say that this is obviously the work of America's foreign enemies - enemies who are not only anti-American, but also anti-family. Hence my support of BRA. Bring our Bibles home. Bring them home."

As she presses for swift Congressional passage of BRA, Davis continues her work on the rest of her "signature" legislative packages, including the Mandatory Portion Control Act (MPCA), aimed at curbing America's growing obesity problem and "Project SATYR" (Scrapboooking Accelerates Terrific Youth Reading), a program designed to capitalize on the recent "scrapbooking craze" to increase youth reading levels through individual vouchers and major tax-breaks to the American scrapbooking industry.

"One of my favorite new singers, Kelis, sings about how her 'milkshakes' bring all the boys to her yard, and it is this exact same proposition we seeing in regards to scrapbooking and teen literacy," says Davis. "We view teen scrapbooks as the 'milkshakes of teen literacy' that will bring underperforming teen readers to the 'yard' of teen literacy. Let's face it -- if teens won't read about themselves, in their own scrapbooks, then what will they read about? What's wrong with capitalizing on our youth culture's own narcissism to 'trick' underperforming teens right into literacy!"

Davis continues to push for swift passage of her Yoga Mat Cleanliness Act (YMCA) through taped appearances with New York-based actress Sarah Jessica Parker. "As Chad Lavigne recently pointed out, Sarah has a remarkable nose. Get her within four feet of an unclean yoga mat, and she can sniff out those tinea cruris germs in a twinkling - and that has been useful on more than one occasion!" Davis also continues to work with the Congressional Black Caucus to force the racial integration of television's highly popular "The Daily Show;" and is making plans for her Valentine's Day introduction of a new legislative package to create "Sexy Fridays" nationwide.

Prior to responding to the call of democracy, Congresswoman Davis was a star of stage and screen, appearing with show business luminaries such as Helen Hunt, Amy Sedaris, Nathan Lane, Bette Midler, Leslie Kritzer, Woody Allen, Kristin Chenoweth, Paul Dinello, Matthew Broderick, Martin Short and Susan Sarandon. Davis, known widely as the "face behind the Pashmina" for her role in successfully launching that foreign garment into closets of middle America, skyrocketed to fame in the 1990's with her lively rock-anthem "Baby Dance," which reached No. 4 on the Billboard pop charts. Davis was appointed to her Congressional seat late last year after the tragic death of her husband and was re-elected this November by a "slim but substantial majority." Prior to leaving show business to represent her Congressional district, Davis also played the role of Penny Pingleton in numerous regional performances of "Hairspray."

CB and Barney. You are st... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

CB and Barney. You are stupid and shameless liars. Your only prospect is to deceive those who are willfully ignorant or too busy to give a shit. Your democrat media will not win the election for you in 08 nor will they run smoke screens for your criminal party of frauds. The Sleeping Giant has been awaken so traitors beware. You creeps are finished in 08. You have yet to see True Americans fight you Psuedo Americans cowards.

"Rob, you really need to ge... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Rob, you really need to get over yesterday's news. In case you didn't know, Kerry lost the election and Clinton has been out of office for 6 years. Neither of them set the course for invading Iraq on false premises, okay? Can you think about that for a moment before you unleash another angry rant?"

Sorry but it is you losers that are constantly rtrying to rewrite history and destroy classified documents that show their failures and crimes. Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 by none other than BJ Clinton.

You've lied and lost agian, care to play again?

I will now explain how the ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I will now explain how the scum-bag (Pelosie's words) President's "surge" could work.

The Shiites agree to truly share power, turn over wealth with the Sunni's and sacrifice Mookie. The Sunni's agree to cooperate. The US and some Iraqi forces fall back (pull out of all non secured provinces) to concentrate on Baghdad. In a joint effort, they clear and hold, while most of the Iraqi forces go through purges and retraining.

Once Baghdad is secured, the joint forces move to Anbar province, and unleash hell.

If the Shiite's and the Sunni's can not come to an agreement, we trade one mass murderous dictator with one that was elected and back the Shiite.

The same plan as above, but it will take longer.

If 100,000 troops is inadeq... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

If 100,000 troops is inadequate.

What happens when there's 20,000 troops, 10,000 troop, or even 5,000 troop?

You don't go from 100,000 to 0 overnight. How many troops are going to die on the way out?

Then there'll be the ensuing slaughter of anyone who supported us in the least way shape or form.

And the next time we need to invade a nation, who would ever consider supporting us and forming a new government? Which leaves only one option for the next country we need to handle, putting them back to the stone age so that when we leave and our enemies resume power, there aren't two sticks to rub together. Then after that country rebuilds, bomb them back to the stone age again and again and again.

Congrads.

You guys are all a riot! Th... (Below threshold)
914:

You guys are all a riot! Thanks for the laughs ha ha....Almost as funny as Soddom falling thru that trap door!

jpm100,In your wor... (Below threshold)
John:

jpm100,

In your world do you have a huge pressing need to invade other countries on a regular basis?

Do all of your people have binary thinking that only allows for invasion or bombing back to the stone age?

Just wondering what it's like over "there".

Regards,

John

If everyone kicks in a few ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

If everyone kicks in a few bucks we can get the medication that Rob so despearately needs.

KimYou are an inco... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

You are an incorrigible partisan hack. This piece is pure crap...and if you had one scentilla of homest reasoning capacity, you wouldn't have even posted it.

I was affected, a few days ago, by your entry on your family's loss and I identified, as far too often in this matter.

Apparently, even tho you experienced a loss from Iraq, you have no qualms about escalating the Iraqi cost in American lives for the sake of saving the Chimp-in-chief's face.

You are one heroic lady, arguing for additional loss of life in the pursuit of Bush's chimera.

Shame on you.

I copied the cut and run le... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I copied the cut and run letter from Peeeloshi and Dirty Harry and saved it in my files. I'll pull it up and spread it around when their actions result is the slaughter of millions in Iraq as their cut and run did in Southeast Asia. Not if a slaughter occurs, but when.

Larkin, you obviously didn'... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Larkin, you obviously didn't read Col. North's article, in regards to his position against the "surge". There are two basic issues to contend with, neither of which a "surge" will manage effectively:

1. As long as the ROE remains the same, a "surge" will present the enemy with more targets than it will US soldiers opportunities to defeat the enemy; and

2. At this phase of the conflict, "Iraqization" is key. North reports that soldiers are begging for more training and support personnel, to train the Iraqis to defend their own country. However, a troop surge will signal to the Iraqis that we are responsible for their long-term security, not them.

It was those two issues that plagued LBJ when he "surged" troop levels in Vietnam, but without realizing subsequent tactical gains on the battlefield.

I agree that more troops were required up front, and that the recent "garrison" strategy leaves a lot to be desired. Yet a surge in troop levels, in and of itself, won't do much, especially when it comes coupled with an expectation (stated or unstated) that troop drawdowns will begin late this year.

John,among there c... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

John,

among there countries we've invaded are Germany, Japan, and Afghanistan. Were you against all of those invasions?

I have a son in Iraq and he... (Below threshold)
V Pleiss:

I have a son in Iraq and he absolutely does not believe we should pull out immediately. He also believes we need more troops, unlike most of the Dems believe. 70 percent of the military DID NOT vote democrat. MOST of them are there by choice! And most of them detest the media because it is the media who has convinced the public that Iraq is a quagmire. Do any of them bother to ask the guys who are actually on the ground what they think? And I'm talking about the ones that haven't had their stay extended and aren't totally burned out. Ask the guys throught the rest of the country if they feel we are doing good things there. Bahgdad is a mess..but there is more to Iraq than just Bahgdad. It's funny that the media says that Iraqis don't want us there and yet they tell our military that they do. I want my son home too...I pray for him and his buddies every day. I also know that he is working LONGER shifts because they are so short handed. The surge in Vietnam WAS working...ask the vets that were there. Until our congress and our wonderful media decided to pull them out. The south WERE learning to fight their battles. But when we pulled out when we did, people were butchered! You think the Iraqis are dying now? Pull our troops out immediately and you will see the worse blood bath not to mention Iran and Syria stepping in and we'll have a whole country of terrorists and believe me, there will be nothing we can do to stop them from coming here. The media has done an excellent job of convincing the public that we are losing! Guess what WE ALREADY WON THE WAR! We are in the middle of reconstruction and stabalization, not the war. As far as believing that because the Dems were elected, it means most of the general population want us to leave immediately, you might want to take a little closer look at who the newly elected dems are. MOST of them are conservative and won on their economic or moral views, NOT THE WAR!!
I'm just so tired of this and our guys get so discouraged when they hear what the media has to say knowing that most Americans are buying into it. As one of them told me, how do you support the soldier and not support the mission?
I want my son home...his wife and baby want him home...but I also trust him when he tells me that he is needed there, he has job to do and that the Iraqis are glad we are there. We need to get out...but only when the job is done.

I played Baseball , Voll... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

I played Baseball , Volleyball at school , went racing with my friends at Willow Springs , Dears point , Button Willow , Firebird, Phoenix El Centro and Los Vegas. When we weren't out racing we were out riding our jet ski's at Havasu, Laughlin , Parker , Copper Canyon , Big Bear , Lake Isabela , Rosario , Santa Barbara, Lake Mead , Cabrillo beach, Giligans Island , a friends pool and two trips to Hawaii, Ensenada, Catalina bla bla bla so on and so forth.

Yes, Rob, I'm posting this from the Pelosi blog below. Why? Because I'm not as concilliatory as stevenrobb obviously is.

You are a childish, spoiled little hack who has no idea what it's like to live a real life in the real world with real problems other than where you can purchase your latest ipod accessories.

Go back to mommie's tit, pussy-boy, and live a real life before you start making judgements on others, loser.

The Dems need to think long... (Below threshold)
PeterS:

The Dems need to think long and hard about pulling out of Iraq because, there is the Power Vacuum Problem. Maybe the Hippies can deny the blood on their hands from the Cambodian killing fields after the US pulled out in SE Asia. Forget the local factions, it's the outside countries that have the power and the most likely candidate to invade may be Iran and they have nukes. How could the Dems ever be able to justify that enough to remain a political party.

jp100 asks;"Joh... (Below threshold)
John:

jp100 asks;

"John,

among there countries we've invaded are Germany, Japan, and Afghanistan. Were you against all of those invasions?"

Actualy, no. I am not. Germany and Japan were before my time, but I am not against any of these three military actions, with the exception that we should have used nuclear weapons against military, not civilian targets to bring the Japanese conflict to a rapid conclusion. I do not have an issue with the Afghanistan invasion eiether, although we should have stayed there until we had the primary target (Osama - remember him?).

History is so much more interesting in real life though... Two out of the three examples you list are now 60 years old. Ever wonder what we've been up to in the meantime?

Here's a good rundown of the US air warfare campaigns you neglected to mention that just happened to occur in between your WWII and Afghanastan examples.

Japan (1943-45): conventional; incendiary; nuclear

China (1945-49): conventional; biological

Korea (1950-53): conventional; biological; chemical; incendiary

China (1951-52): conventional; biological; chemical

Guatemala (1954): conventional

Indonesia (1958): conventional

Cuba (1959-61): conventional; (biochemical attacks in other years)

Guatemala (1960): conventional

Vietnam (1961-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

Congo (1964): conventional

Peru (1965): conventional

Laos (1964-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

Guatemala (1967-69): conventional

Cambodia (1969-70): conventional; chemical; biological

Cambodia (1975): conventional

El Salvador (1980-89): conventional

Nicaragua (1980-89): conventional

Grenada (1983): conventional

Lebanon (1983-4): conventional

Syria (1984): conventional

Libya (1986): conventional

Iran (1987): conventional

Panama (1989): conventional; chemical; biological

Iraq (1991-2002): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Kuwait (1991): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Somalia (1993): conventional

Bosnia (1993-95): conventional; cluster; DU

Sudan (1998): conventional; biological

Afghanistan (1998): conventional

Yugoslavia (1999): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

Afghanistan (2001-02): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

And in case you were going to ask, no... I'm not really in favor of all of those. A couple perhaps, but not very many.

(By the way, before today, did you realize how busy we Americans have been?)

PeterS,Deep breath... (Below threshold)
John:

PeterS,

Deep breath... Iran does NOT have nukes. Even Fox news isn't buying that bullshit. It's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously, even though you make a good point about the power vacuum.

Considering Bush created this situation, and we can't afford to keep paying and straining our military, how does this all of a sudden become a Democrat problem? If I came over and smashed all your good china, you gonna blame me, or yourself, because you couldn't glue it back together good as new?

CBS says they only... (Below threshold)
marc:
CBS says they only have 9,000 troops to use anyway, not much a surge, not even a bump! :: by Adam on January 5, 2007 3:16 PM ::
That has to be the sorriest attempt at supplying support for your argument I've seen in years.

Quick... someone tell me when anyone connected with CBS was appointed the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

BTW, a "surge" can easily be accomplished via the 60,000 troops spread between bases in Japan and Germany.

In fact plans are to pull the German based troops out permanently in the future. No time like the present, make it happen now.

And yo, guess what... (Below threshold)
marc:
And yo, guess what buddy, we got the reigns now, so we will decide the policies and let your ilk sit on the sidelines for a while. You guys get to be the sore loser party now, screaming bloody murder about being in the minority. Posted by: Cornwell at January 5, 2007 04:00 PM
Is that an admission that you and the democrats were in fact a "sore loser party now, screaming bloody murder about being in the minority," since Nov 2000 and didn't change til a few short weeks ago?

And yo, guess what buddy you guys have the reigns to the lower house. Lower in every respects including any measurable power.

The power sits in the Senate where "you guys" have the slimmest of margins and will catch hell getting anything too far out of the ordinary passed. In other word kiss a new Hillery Care good-by along with many other tax sucking social crapola.

And BTW, the ultimate power comes in the form of a rubber stamp. It stamps VETO and resides... well you know where it resides and you must be aware no matter your "Nov Sweep" you still have to kiss Bush's ass to get anything done.

John,nice attempt ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

John,

nice attempt to dodge my point.

My point is that one day, there will be another dictator that most people agree needs to be put down and replaced by force. Perhaps one you even agree with. If we leave Iraq, that option will never be open to us in the future.

The only option will be utter destruction of the country's infrastructure so that country can't be a threat. In fact, this was the practice on Iraq before we removed Saddam. And it was as strong Anti-US rallying point as Iraq is today.

I'm guessing there have bee... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

I'm guessing there have been more murders in the democratic paradises known as Detroit, Chicago, DC, NYC, Portland, etc. than the US troop losses in Iraq. We should pull out of those hell-holes!!!

To john and repuke: you lo... (Below threshold)
moseby:

To john and repuke: you lose. The war will go on and thankfully more ay-rabs will get slaughtered because the demoshits know that if they pull out the majority of Amercians will disagree. Your polls mean nothin--as most polls do. You suck, da both a yahs.

Sorry for skimming through ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Sorry for skimming through the partisian name calling coming from both sides of the aisle, but I have a comment on the ACTUAL post that was made ...

WHAT generals think additional troops is a bad idea?

Oh, I've seen a number of generals who have disagreed with Bush's stategy, but none of the ones that I've seen did so because they wanted less troops. ALL - of the ones that I have seen - wanted more troops.

Now if Reid and Pelosi don't want to increase troop strength, that's their perogative, but justify it with inaccurate claims?

As to the argument about Bush's "mistake" in not sending enough troops to start with ...

The impression given by that statement was that Bush didn't listen to ANY of the generals and what they advised. Fact is that there was a difference of opinion on the subject. Those who fought the first Gulf War believed that overwhelming numbers was the key; Franks and others thought the advances in technology would allow them to fight the war with less numbers.

Were they wrong? Possibly - but those saying that they were wrong are doing so with hingsight. It is very easy to make those decisions after the fact.

Personally, I don't know if the two strategies could be compared. If the this war had been fought with the ROE's of the last Gulf conflict, we may have put down the insurgency long ago.

hey'yall, OhioVoter. These ... (Below threshold)
moseby likes men:

hey'yall, OhioVoter. These pricks on this site don't know dick. They're all losers and they enjoy man meat almost as much as I do. But that ain't jibber jabber. The demoshits rule, but I rule more!

John,Okay, let's c... (Below threshold)
PeterS:

John,

Okay, let's correct my comment. Iran is well on its way to having a nuclear weapon. How does this make it a Dem problem? Because it is the Democratic politicians who are asking the US to abandon the Iraqi people and they do not have a plan in place to resolve the issue of a power vacuum. The consequences of that choice will be bloodier and more catastrophic than what is going on now.

This is become a troll fest... (Below threshold)
PeterS:

This is become a troll fest. I won't be back to read any replies. Have fun ya'll.

I forgot to add, John, that... (Below threshold)
PeterS:

I forgot to add, John, that I don't give a hootin'nanny what Fox news calls BS. The US military thinks Iran will use nukes and we can probably say goodbye to Israel too while we're at it.

Kim, to be fair why don't y... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Kim, to be fair why don't you include everyone else who opposes more troops in Iraq? Let's see...the majority of the American people, majority of top level military (including some that HAVEN"T been replaced for their views), and many congressional Republicans as well. The Democratic position is THE American position. In this case they are representing the will of the people, something this administration has completely lost touch with. Bush and his handlers do not own this country. Your attempt to put a partisan spin on this is cheap and disingenuous.

WHAT generals think addi... (Below threshold)
baron:

WHAT generals think additional troops is a bad idea?

these!

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F1EF83B550C728EDDAB0994DE404482

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523255

ohiovoter you pretend not to know but if you pay attention and don't lie we can discuss the truth!

WHAT generals think addi... (Below threshold)
baron:

WHAT generals think additional troops is a bad idea?

these!

select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F1EF83B550C728EDDAB0994DE404482

www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523255

ohiovoter you pretend not to know but if you pay attention and don't lie we can discuss the truth!

Baron, normally I wouldn't ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Baron, normally I wouldn't even bother to respond to a post like yours, but you were so condescending in your response, I just have to point out that your links don't even answer my question.

"Wary" is not the name of a general. Nor is a third hand, unnamed source a personal statement of opinion.

I will assume that - if that is the best you can do - you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Peter S. had the right idea. This is nothing but a trollfest.

Peter S. had the right idea. This is nothing but a trollfest.

OhioVoter, your reading com... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OhioVoter, your reading comprehension needs a boost.

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The JCS currently consists of:

General Peter Pace
Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani
General Peter J. Schoomaker
Admiral Michael G. Mullen
General T. Michael Moseley
General James T. Conway

You like generals? How about those generals?

I will assume that - if pretending not to be able to read is the best you can do - you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Thanks for the laugh ...</p... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Thanks for the laugh ...

What part of the words "Nor is a third hand, unnamed source a personal statement of opinion." is it that you are incapable of understanding or comprehending?

From the link you quoted:

.....said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

Let me explain it to you so that you CAN comprehend it.

It means that your link does NOT contain a statement from ..

...General Peter Pace stating the point of view that you claim it does.
...Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani stating the point of view you claim it does.
...General Peter J. Schoomaker stating the point of view that you claim it does.
...Admiral Michael G. Mullen stating the point of view that you claim it does.
...General T. Michael Moseley stating the point of view that you claim it does.
...General James T. Conway stating the point of view that you claim it does.

Nor do the authors of the piece you linked to claim to have spoken directly to any of the individuals you named and are quoting them directly.

IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO (and the section that I quoted) the source of the opinion is one or more ANONYMOUS official(s) ... or, in other words "... a third hand, unnamed source" just as I said it was.

Now, if you have an actual statement from a general or admiral .... and there are any number on record with their opinions ... that make the statement that they have always supported less toops, produce it.

That's all I asked for before you attacked me for "pretending not to know" and warning me that I had to "pay attention and not lie" .

So produce it.

Other wise, I was right the first time ... you have nothing to add to the discussion.

"Fortunately for us, the cu... (Below threshold)
Pagar:

"Fortunately for us, the current democrats are thinking about the troops who have their lives on the line - and not a political "I told you so."
With comments like these, Wizbang is probably the top recruiting tool the terrorists have right now. Looks like everyone of their leftist supporters are posting on how this nation is forced to surrender to the terrorists, now that the Democrats have taken control.
I can only think of 1 Democrat who might possibly be thinking about defending Iraq and that would be Sen Lieberman. Who is only welcomed in the Democrat side of the Senate because he gives them control. If the breakout of the Senate was 60+ democrats, they would be treating Sen Lieberman worse than they treat Pres Bush.

Oh, I see. You disavow conf... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Oh, I see. You disavow confidential sources, and will only believe a direct public statement by the JCS disagreeing with Bush.

Oh, puh-lease.

And let's see you hold that same standard during the next whisper campaign against Democrats.

So, in other words, Brian, ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

So, in other words, Brian, you can't provide a link to a single general/military official stating that they oppose additional troops being sent to Iraq.

Because you believe it is the truth, it must be the truth and I should be convinced?

Sorry, if someone claims that they have proof of a point of view, they should, at least, be able to provide one example of that point of view.

Whine all you want - your haven't done it.

Even if I believed your anonymous, third hand source, all it would say is that they (they third pary, anonymous source) believed the Joint Chief of Staff's opposed a troop surge.

Did it even occur to you that the reason that the Joint Chief of Staff's may have opposed a "surge" in troops was not because they opposed more troops, but because they didn't think a "surge" was enough troops and wanted more?

Based on the link that you quoted that is an equally possible scenario. That's the beauty of quoting third party, anonymous sources. No one can verify whether what they say - and how they interpret the story - is true or not.

And let's see you hold that same standard during the next whisper campaign against Democrats.

Now that comment is incomprehensible.

What, on earth, does it have to do with the topic being discussed?

If the only thing you'll ac... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If the only thing you'll accept is an actual member of the Joint Chiefs holding a public press conference and stepping up before the cameras to disagree with Bush, then you've just invalidated the entire "background" tenet of journalism, and your standards are impossibly high.

Now that comment is incomprehensible.

I can't help your lack of comprehension. Quite simply, it means that the next time some "unnamed anonymous source" provides information critical of a Democrat, I expect to see your denunciation of that information as equally unreliable and suspect.

And the "whining" continues... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

And the "whining" continues ....

Since you have made a point of repeatedly attacking MY reading comprehension skills and - apparently - you are incapable of backing up your claim that even ONE military admiral or general never thought that additional troops in Iraq were a good idea, let me point out a few problems with YOUR reading comprehenstion skills.

"If the only thing you'll accept is an actual member of the Joint Chiefs...."

I never said that I even needed a statement from a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff let alone that it is the only thing that I would accept. YOUR STATED THAT YOU HAD A STATEMENT from a member of the Joint Chief of Staff saying such a thing.

I'm still waiting to see it because you were unable to produce it. However, I have said repeatedly that ANY general/admiral going on record would do. That's what I said that I would accept. You apparently can't find even one.


"....holding a public press conference and stepping up before the cameras to disagree with Bush..."

Again, that is YOUR claim not mine. Oddly, some of the generals who have criticized Bush for not sending ENOUGH troops to Iraq have done precisely that. Others who think that he didn't send ENOUGH troops to Iraq have testified in front of Congress. Others who hold THAT point of view have given on the record statements to reporters.

Your link doesn't even make the claim that the reporters of the piece EVEN TALKED to a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

" .... then you've just invalidated the entire "background" tenet of journalism, and your standards are impossibly high."

Not my job.

There is no reason that I have to "validate" the credibility of journalism. If they cannot do so themselves, then their credibility - like your credibility currently is - should be zero.

I find it amusing that you think having a person say that 'this is my opinion' before I assume it is actually is their opinion is an 'impossible high standard'. Given that others have done PRECISELY that is you are obviously factually incorrect - it isn't 'an impossibly high standard' because others from the same group we are discussing have met it.

Now that comment is incomprehensible.

I can't help your lack of comprehension. Quite simply, it means that the next time some "unnamed anonymous source" provides information critical of a Democrat, I expect to see your denunciation of that information as equally unreliable and suspect.

Hmmmm, Brian ....

I was speaking about your logic being incomprehensible. I understood the comment perfectly.

You made a claim about the opinion of military leaders. You quoted a link and went even farther than the link to claim, not only that the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, but each individual Joint Chief of Staff held the opinion that you claim that they did.

You couldn't, however, back up your claim.

Heck, you still can't back up your claim.

So, what did you do instead? You attacked me personally. Like I said, your logic is incomprehensible.

Given that you - as you have ably demonstrated in this thread - are fine with "whisper" campaigns against those you disagree with, your attack on me seems both hypocritical and empty.

I backed up what I said. I ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I backed up what I said. I posted a link to an article reporting that an anonymous inside source said the JCS were "unanimous" in disagreeing with the surge. That's six, not one. It was not stated as "opinion" (as you dismiss it).

And as I said, you have an impossibly high threshold of requiring a member of the JCS to go on public record as disagreeing with the president. All you can do is mock my example of a press conference. Choose any medium that you wish, but it's silly for anyone to expect a JCS public break with the president, unless it's followed by a resignation. Therefore, you can just keep fantasizing that the JCS agree 100% with everything the president does, since for you to believe otherwise apparently requires a statement on the public record. Never gonna happen. So you can sit there and pretend that there is no disagreement, when there are numerous reports (I cited one) of disagreement. I can't debate colors with blind person.

I can't debate colors wi... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I can't debate colors with blind person.

Boy ... do you get defensive when someone dares to question you. :-D

Let's use this real-life example to try and explain to you why I don't accept a third hand anonymous source as a direct statement of fact from not just the Joint Chiefs' as a group, but, as you just pointed out again, EACH AND EVERY member of the Joint Chiefs.

Let's recap:

I originally asked:

WHAT generals think additional troops is a bad idea?

The question could have been answered by quoting any general - or admiral - since the beginning of the war. You claim "....when there are numerous reports (I cited one) of disagreement..." It should have been simple to get any number of links to such comments and there would be no reason to endlessly defend a flawed one as you have.

My example (for discussion purposes):

Despite the repeated references to the "numerous reports", I have gotten just one link in response and it doesn't quote any, individual general.

Baron posted the link.

Brian posted the exact same link.

Baron said - in his FIRST post on the subject - "... ohiovoter you pretend not to know..."

Brian said:

" ...if pretending not to be able to read ..."

" ....So you can sit there and pretend.... "

Based on those similarities - the same link and same phrasing - Brian and Baron is the same person.

End of my example.

Now, I would call that statement simply my "opinion" of what has been said.

You claim that it is fact, not my opinion, because I am reporting what I have seen.

Now, my example is not perfect. I am not anonymous - the source of the article is. We know that I have present for this discussion. The anonymous source may have been nowhere near any discussions involving the Joint Chiefs of Staff and simply made up what they said to get an expensive lunch. We can't determine that because .. well, the source is anonymous.

Nonetheless, you believe what the anonymous third party source says without question and unequivocally claim that it is not simply their opinion, but is fact.

So then you should believe my example to be true as well, shouldn't you?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Choose any medium that you wish, but it's silly for anyone to expect a JCS public break with the president, unless it's followed by a resignation.

I agree that it is silly. However, it's your POV, not mine.

I ASSUME that JCS disagree with the president and do so often.

Why? Because they religously refuse to play PR games in order to protect their non-partisianship regardless of what administration is in power. That's HOW they can disagree with the President's on issues and still have credibility with him.

Since you can't seem to come up with a link to any other the "numerous reports" that you claim exist, I assume you will simply respond with another rant about what you think that I am thinking rather than to respond to what I said.

<a href="http://th... (Below threshold)
Brian:
Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain's calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said 'no.'"
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

That good enough for you?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy