« Democrats are inspiring those in support of the mission to fight back | Main | Petraeus Confirmed By Senate 81-0 »

Congress and Cowardice

We have a Congress full of cowards. Without fail, when the issue of the war against Terrorism comes to their attention, the action of both chambers is to do the expedient; promise support for the troops, but do little to follow through, especially on any action which might actually move the matter towards victory. The Democrats sit on their hands when the President proposes that we win the war; they want to impeach him for doing his job, whatever excuse they pin on it. But the Republicans who applauded the notions of 'victory' and ridding the world of Islamofascism are no better, hypocrites who refuse any personal hardship and quail at the thought of doing what is right rather than what makes a good sound byte. What passes for "leadership" in either party bears a striking similarity in appearance, odor, and character to what passes from a Cholera victim. And this, God help us, is the nature of that body which will direct the nation's course, and by extension the world, for the next 23 months.

The Democrats praise General Petraeus as they send him off to Iraq, even as they mock and insult the plan he helped create for dealing with the war there.

John McCain wants to run for President on his 'pro-war' credentials, yet he is meeting with other Senators to discuss legislation which would cut the knees out from our deployed troops.

Nancy Pelosi says she wouldn't consider cutting off funding for the troops, even as she makes constant public statements which trash their efforts and press for abandonment of Iraq.

Tom Tancredo pretends to be a patriotic American, yet he deliberately attacked President Bush and the priorities of the Republican Party, simply because he failed to hijack the agenda in favor of his personal will.

Jim Webb engaged in a little hate-fest of lies this week, as his "response" to the President's State of the Union address did little more than tear words out of context, and cherry-pick support to claim that we were losing and should basically give up and run away.

Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, well, they basically shrugged off the last of their dignity and defected to the Dark Side. I figure they will start yelling "Allahu Akhbar" during dull moments on the Senate floor.

You get the idea. There's not a one of them with a spine. What passes for "backbone" in Congress is not checking the NY Times every morning to find out what the media expects them to say and do. I heard Hugh Hewitt say yesterday that a few of them "get it right", but I cannot agree. Those few who do seem to understand the needs of the nation and the crisis we face, still do little to rebuke their shameful colleagues and demand responsible service from them. If a man attacked your wife, you should do more than remark that you would yourself not act as he has; you should defend her and beat the miscreant into a bloody pulp. So it is here, that the nation itself is in dire circumstance, and those who have not attempted to join in on the rape, neither do anything to stop it. A proper defender of the troops and the nation will yell, denounce, and obstruct the pursuit of defeat and abandonment, yet not one Representative or Senator has risen to his feet on this point. Some, to be sure, have made measured statements, when the cameras are on and they think they can impress their hometown voters with a little empty rhetoric, but if you check their actual submitted bills, co-sponsorship, or voting record on the decisions which might accomplish more than a political action, you find a wasteland.

It is well past time, for Americans of determination who desire accountability to make plain to Congress that the present condition of cowardice must cease. The miscreants turned out in the 2006 elections did not lose because they supported the war, or because of any one issue, but because they did not take clear stands in alignment with either principle or their voters, to a degree even worse than the ones left in office. They do not answer calls or mail from the voters, they do not respond to any press except softball interviews from known supporters, and they will not stand alone on principle. None of them.

What can the ordinary man do? Well, for starters we can send a louder message. There is a pledge circulating now, to remind certain Senators that we are, in fact, in a deadly serious war, and that they have made a commitment we expect - indeed demand, them to keep. Sign it and push for it.

After that, the principle for diligent voters, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent of any party, must be to hold the official accountable, completely, for both what he says and does, and for what he ignores. Otherwise, we should prove ourselves as cowardly as these liars and crooks now in office.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Congress and Cowardice:

» The Virtuous Republic linked with John Edwards Feels Your Pain

Comments (133)

Circulate your petition. So... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Circulate your petition. Something like 2/3 of the American people believe that Iraq is a lost cause and want out. They want their sons and daughters home alive, and with all their limbs. They're not cowards; they're just not naive anymore. It's been many years and they've been told many lies. "We're winning in Iraq", "The insurgency is in it's last throes", etc.

Even though the photos are rarely seen, they know about the people coming back in body bags. They know exactly what's going on and they're opposed to it.

Senators and Congressmen and Presidents can be "brave" behind their desks. And we can be "brave" sitting behind our keyboards. But I think it's cowardly to send other people's sons and daughters to their deaths, and stick to your positions even though you've gotten nearly everything wrong.

No WMD.
No "last throes"
We don't need more troops...umm, we need more troops..

So, sign your petitions. I know you are sincere and believe you are doing what's best. But you are signing death warrants for our brave soldiers.

This is why so many Americans oppose the war. Not cowardice; compassion.

"We don't need more troops.... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"We don't need more troops...umm, we need more troops..."

President Bush has always, from the very beginning, said that if the commanding general in Iraq wanted more troops, he'd get them.

In 2003-2005, CENTCOM didn't feel the need. So he didn't ask, and he didn't get.

In the latter days of 2006, CENTCOM asked. And so, now he gets.

Duh.

I find it spectacularly idiotic that you are *criticizing* the ability to recognize when you need to adapt your plans to changing circumstances. This ability generally being considered a /strength/ re: military strategy and all.

OK Publicus, I disagree wit... (Below threshold)

OK Publicus, I disagree with your stance, but at least you're consistent in your opinion. Can you look at the Democrats, and tell me why they - like the Republicans - will say one thing and vote another? If so many Americans want us to quit and run, why not say so plainly and submit a bill to do just that?

Your team has the majority, what's stopping you?

I'm not just picking on Democrats or Republicans here, I'm pointing out there's none of them that really stands behind his speeches.

Chuckg--Well, we A... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

Well, we ALL know that when the generals disagreed with what Bush wanted, Bush changed generals. He was never taking their advice. I also find it kind of funny that you're accusing me of being against changing strategies to meet new circumstances...after your president has been saying "stay the course" year after year (until recently) as the body bags increased, the situation grew more out of hand, and deteriorated to where it is today.

In any case, I'm trying to help you understand the opposition...that is, the vast majority of your countrymen. But maybe you don't want to understand; maybe you just want to call them idiots and cowards. That's your choice.

** sigh **"Stay th... (Below threshold)

** sigh **

"Stay the course" means 'don't give up', not 'do not adapt', Publicus.

I'm pretty sure you know that, so your comments comes off as, well, deliberately dumb.

DJ Drummond --I ha... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond --

I have a problem, too, understanding why so many of these politicians say one thing and do another. Maybe I shouldn't...it's always been a pretty common trait among politicians.

Still, I'd like to understand. I'm guessing that there are a variety of motives.

1. Some are making political calculations, and think that this kind of duplicity will help them.
2. Some are genuinely conflicted.
3. Some support the war, but don't like the strategy and can't think of a good one for the current situation.
4. Some oppose the war but can't think of the right way to get out.

I think I'd prefer for these politicians to explain this for themselves. I would have some respect for a politician to say, "it's a tough situation and I don't know what to do." I'd expect that person to do more homework and come up with a position. But it would be refreshing to get that kind of honesty.

"Well, we ALL know that whe... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Well, we ALL know that when the generals disagreed with what Bush wanted, Bush changed generals. He was never taking their advice."

No, in fact, everyone does *not* 'know' this. You are entirely wrong.

Anyone who's interested, go read General Franks' biography, specifically the chapter about the conferences between POTUS, SECDEF, and CENTCOM (at that time, General Franks) in late 2001, regarding troop strength for the Iraqi invasion.

General Franks directly contradicted the recommendations of both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld and insisted that the invasion plan use his own ideas regarding proper troop strength.

The final invasion plan, the one we actually used, used General Franks' troop #'s -- not the President's.

That's just one reason of many why what you said was totally not true.

Make them hold thier sessio... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

Make them hold thier sessions in the Green Zone. Then maybe they would at least do something productive.

Oh, and before anybody seiz... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

Oh, and before anybody seizes upon 'late 2001' to the exclusion of all other facts, note, these conferences (re: plans for Iraq) started only *after* the Afghanistan campaign was not only drawn up, but being executed. In other words, no, Bush did not 'want to invade Iraq first', so don't even try.

If it looks like I was play... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

If it looks like I was playing a "gotcha" game over words by talking about "stay the course", that's unfortunate; and I've got us off track over an unimportant tangent. I DO believe that most Americans took the phrase "stay the course" to mean we should keep doing what we're doing, not "don't quit." But this is certainly debatable, and not the key issue here anyway...

Dems. are a moving target o... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Dems. are a moving target on the war--they vote for it, then are agin it, they're for a surge, then after Bush does it, agin it, they think we should get out quick, but not now, blah, blah, blah . . .

They have nothing to offer in tactics, strategy, or conduct of war. Nada.

Those who "move the goal post" are always insincere, and playing a game. You Dims. here who can't see that are, well, dim.

Amen, D.J. I can't think o... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Amen, D.J. I can't think of anything to add, except to hope that some in the congress eventually find their spines and speak up.

Chuckg--Well, it m... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

Well, it must be a big coincidence that so many of Bush's former generals oppose his current policies. Because he always listens to his generals...

Chuckg--Well, it m... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

Well, it must be a big coincidence that so many of Bush's former generals oppose his current policies. Because he always listens to his generals...In any case, Bush is "the decider".

I think it's wrong to chara... (Below threshold)
Frank:

I think it's wrong to characterize the change of heart of many Senate Republicans over time as simply cowardice. This is a simple minded argument. Under this reasoning, wouldn't it be then appropriate to dismiss the president's patholigical stubborness on the war as obtuse, or even stupid? Either approach is a dumbing down of reality

If the author and the "pledge" people were a little more thoughtful, it might occur to you that the non-binding resolution passed in the Senate was essentially a vote of no-confidence on the president, not necessarily a call to surrender. Many of the supporters of the resolution are former supporters of the war who have in the past, some for nearly 4 YEARS, staked their own personal political capital on a war they believed in and a president the believed could prosecute it properly. They have lost their faith in the leader. Lost faith in his ability to use good judgement and respond competently to a growing number of complex issues.

Let me ask those that still support the president this: Is your total disdain for any opposition to the way this war has been prosecuted rooted in your felings that:

a) this president is the best possible person for the job (DJ, we know how you feel)
b) you feel that opposition or criticism of our leaders is just simply wrong.
c) you feel the compulsion to reflexively respond negatively to any issue that Democrats get loud about.

Is there a d? I'm genuinely curious about people's real feelings on this.

Laurie -I, too, ho... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Laurie -

I, too, hope that our Congressmen and Senators find their spines and speak up. Because I believe many, many more oppose the Iraq war and don't have the courage to say so, or act on it.

*snorts*I'd be a l... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

*snorts*

I'd be a lot more impressed if:

a) so many of those generals weren't holding sour grapes about their careers ending before 3- and 4-star.

b) so many of those generals weren't criticizing things *that were their own idea* back when they were actually in command.

"If the author and the "ple... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"If the author and the "pledge" people were a little more thoughtful, it might occur to you that the non-binding resolution passed in the Senate was essentially a vote of no-confidence on the president, not necessarily a call to surrender."

Absolute bullcrap! How the hell can voting to say 'We shouldn't send the troops to Iraq that the commanding general feels are necessary for victory' be seen as anything other than yielding the field to the insurgents?

My Congressman is Tom Cobur... (Below threshold)
Steve:

My Congressman is Tom Coburn. I don't have any problem with him. He is perfect. Fins me another Congress critter anywhere with his ideas and actions.

Why lame voters keep sending people like Snowe and Hagel to their reps is baffling to me. And I write to Tom every week about my positions even though I don't need to. But Snowe and Hagel... who is writing them? Mike Moore? You guys need to straighten your congress critters out.

Steve--Voters rece... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Steve--

Voters recently sent the Republican majority packing. What happened? They have opinions that differ from yours.

Gore Vidal says Bush's glob... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Gore Vidal says Bush's global war on terror is like declaring war on dandruff... And furthermore, if it is such deadly serious game why after 3 years, as the IS Group reported are there no more than 6 fluent speakers of Arabic in the US embassy in Iraq in a a staff of 1000. Is this planning to win the hearts or the minds? Why after 4 nearly 4 years is Bush now saying we will win with this surge "because we have to' which makes you wonder what it was saying before? We have gone from 'hope to hope 'since the war's inception which explains why everyone, well almost everyone is sceptical..What did Bush try to say fool me once shame on you, fool me once shame on me. By"speaking up and showing spine".. you and Lorie mean by supporting the President, right or wrong..on a subject he has been disastrously.... wrong.

Back in January 2004, I sen... (Below threshold)

Back in January 2004, I sent out a questionnaire to every member of the House and Senate, by email and by fax.

25 responded.

3 responded with something besides a form letter.

I got a form letter from my Congressman which did not answer any of my questions, and nothing at all from either of my two Senators.

Sad to say, that was about what I expected.

Oh and Frank, I don't mind a change of mind at all over time, but if you pay attention you will see these jackals flip in a matter of days on the same issue.

If so many Americans wan... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

If so many Americans want us to quit and run, why not say so plainly and submit a bill to do just that?

I don't think most Americans support that, but they are against escalating the war.

The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is the sort of policy on Iraq that could get majority support in this country. A gradual drawdown of our forces while doing everything we can to prop up the Iraqi government.

Even the staunchest opponents of the war (like myself) realize we can't just pack up and leave overnight. What I'd like to see is a phased withdrawal that reduces our force size over the next two years to something around 30,000. This approach can work if coupled with political and diplomatic initiatives and continued strengthening of the Iraqi military, and would not necessarily result in the dire consequences that Bush laid out in his SOTU (which is the worst case scenario of all-out civil war). Unfortunately, we will have to wait for 2009 before we have a President willing to take this difficult (but inevitable) course.

Americans are not occupiers; we're liberators. And the American people won't support a large-scale perpetual occupation of a country where the people clearly don't want us (as polling data shows). Why is that so hard to understand?

You right wingers start out... (Below threshold)

You right wingers start out hating the anti-war crowd at the beginning of the Iraq war.

Once average Americans were no longer willing to sit by silently and spoke out against this mess they too were labeled anti-patriotic and were add to your list.

Then you included all Democrats to your list as those in the democratic party who voted for this war started to figure out what a disaster this administration has gotten us into.

Next you moved on to hating the media for showing us what a badly managed war does to the heart, body, mind and soul of a soildier and a nation.

Next as those in the Republican party started to figure out that this Iraq war is not going to end well and decided to not let it drag them down to defeat in the next election you turned on them.

So please pass your pledge far and wide so all can see who the last members of society are that have yet to be added to your list.

If so many America... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
If so many Americans want us to quit and run, why not say so plainly and submit a bill to do just that?

I don't think most Americans support that, but they are against escalating the war.

Not true. A recent poll shows that a slight majority (53%) favor Congress cutting off funds, if that's what it takes to get us out of Iraq. I found that poll to be surprising. And I'm surprised this poll gets so little attention anywhere.

Publicus - I comme... (Below threshold)

Publicus -

I commend Will Rogers' comment to you:

"It ain't the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."

More people need to work from facts - it is discouraging that solid facts on these matters are so hard to get. Lots of people seem to be happy to work on the basis of rumor, bias, and unsupported assertions repeated ad nauseum.

Too many folks seem to be in this for the sake of the arguments, and not for the sake of a desireable outcome.

Chuck G. I guess y... (Below threshold)
Frank:

Chuck G.

I guess you're one of the "pledge people". Absolutely tone deaf to any frequency not in Bush's affable Texas drawl.

Parker--So you're ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Parker--

So you're saying that the President, the Congress and Senate (both of which were Republican until this month) and conservative media outlets like Fox and Limbaugh, have been unable to get the "truth" across? And that's why the majority of Americans, who supported the war for quite awhile, are now wrong?

Explain. Clarify.

Publicus:Your list... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Publicus:

Your list of motives is interesting:
1. "Some are making political calculations"
SOME!? Try most. Up until this point, the entire Democratic position is "Bush and the GOP are wrong. We oppose them." Fine. Now they have the power to act. Now they are expected to actually do something. And they can't.

So far, the Dhimmicrats are proving they have no ideas and no guts. We can plainly see that they don't believe that the war can be won, but they don't want to suffer the consequences of taking action. And they plan to let the conflict drag on for another two years to win the White House.

2. "Some are genuinely conflicted."
Nonsense. You're restating the problem.

3. "Some support the war, but don't like the strategy and can't think of a good one for the current situation."
Then they should SHUT UP. Stupidly attacking someone who is trying to do something to promote positive change isn't the answer. If the Dhimmicrats have nothing to offer, then they should step down and make room for people who have ideas and the courage to carry out those ideas.

4. "Some oppose the war but can't think of the right way to get out."
Well then they shouldn't have run for office by talking about "redeployment" then, should they?

He's a hint folks: the RIGHT WAY to get out is when your enemy (in this case, Islamic extremists) cannot claim victory.

--------

D.J.:

You're asking a very good question. My answer is that we have the government that we deserve. The American people should be made of stronger stuff than this. Once you decide to go to war, that's it. Nothing will remain the same. There are no public opinion polls. The discussion is over. You win. Period.

The American people should be demanding more from their representatives. The American people should have demanded that the Bush Administration kill the enemy faster, and should have demanded that the Dhimmicrats put up or shut up. They didn't. Instead, we rewarded do-nothing politicians running on a non-existent platform. That's what the American people voted for in 2006, and this is what we get.

The counter argument to this is of course that the Dhimmicrats did have a platform. Why, look at the first 100 hours! OK, if that's what Americans voted for: they got it. They got 100 hours of work out of Congress, filled with action on a small list of items carefully chosen to be popular with most Americans.

Now what?

Most Americans didn't ask that question. They should have.

--------

This is all about the blame game. The Dhimmicrats have no idea how to win in Iraq, how to confront Islamic extremists, or even how to save Social Security. They aren't interested in solving real problems. They're only interested in assigning blame to the other party when the whole mess comes crashing down.

If liberals truly believe that Iraq cannot be won, then what bizarre, twisted ethical system allows them to let this continue one single day? How can we ask young men and women to put their lives on the line simply because the majority of politicians are afraid of losing their jobs or give up a chance to win the White House if they pull them out?

You know the sad part: they will probably get away with it, too. They will spend the next two years doing nothing but attack the White House, and then they will tell the American people that they couldn't do anything because of Bush and the republicans. And they will probably win.

What happens next? It won't be pretty. But we will have the governement that we deserve.

The American peopl... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The American people should be made of stronger stuff than this. Once you decide to go to war, that's it.

Even if the situation changes? Even if the information the government has been giving you turns out to be false? No matter what? That's it? Your sons and daughters (or more easily, other people's sons and duaghters) MUST be sent to their deaths because a decision has been made and can't be altered?

I disagree.

btw Larkin, by definition "... (Below threshold)

btw Larkin, by definition "escalating the war" would be something like invading Syria or Iran.

We're talking about sending reinforcements which the troops have requested.

Now if you want to be plain and say "no reinforcements", say so. But please try to use the correct words.

If liberals truly ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
If liberals truly believe that Iraq cannot be won, then what bizarre, twisted ethical system allows them to let this continue one single day?

Indeed, I have questions about this, too. I'm thinking: the probability of a veto; the fact that the decider says he'll do what he wants whatever Congress does, etc.

They have some choices to make: Vote on a binding resolution now, and have the president veto or ignore it; or find some other way to end the war. Maybe they're trying to figure out a way to do the latter.

DJ Drummond --Esca... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond --

Escalation? Reinforcements? Surge? Let's drop all the euphemisms and just say we're talking about sending more troops.

"Indeed, I have questions a... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Indeed, I have questions about this, too. I'm thinking: the probability of a veto; the fact that the decider says he'll do what he wants whatever Congress does, etc."

Again, bullcrap. The President cannot compel Congress into funding a war against their will.

"Escalation? Reinforcements... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Escalation? Reinforcements? Surge? Let's drop all the euphemisms and just say we're talking about sending more troops."

So after spending years screaming that President Bush didn't send enough troops, you now bitterly oppose any effort to send more troops.

You are a shameless hypocrite, and the Democrats in Congress all along with you.

A little history:<... (Below threshold)
Mike:

A little history:


Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap

Born: 1912
Place of Birth: An Xa, Vietnam
Military University: none
Wars Fought:
-World War II
-First Indochina War(French-Indochina War 1946-1954)
-Second Indochina War(Vietnam War 1965-1972)
-Third Indochina War 1979-81
Vietnam War:
Gen. Giap planned and directed the military operations against the French that culminated in their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. During the 1960's Giap controlled guerrilla operations against South Vietnam and the United States and planned the Tet Offensive of 1968.

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.


Anyone see any similarities here? Osama knows us better than we know ourselves.

Publicus:RE: "Inde... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Publicus:

RE: "Indeed, I have questions about this, too. I'm thinking: the probability of a veto; the fact that the decider says he'll do what he wants whatever Congress does, etc."
[Yawn.] This has been discussed before. As many have repeatedly stated the President only gets to spend the money that Congress sends him. Period. If they pull the funding, then he gets nothing. If he vetoes the DOD appropriations bill, they all of the military shuts down unless Congress passes a short term (3-4 month) bill, and they can put restrictions on that.

Even without their direct authority under the War Powers Act, I would also add that Congress has a unique opportunity in Iraq. The President has declared "Mission Accomplished". The foreign power that we were at war with has been defeated. Congress has authority under the Constitution to "make rules concerning captures on land and sea." Iraq is captured territory.


RE: "They have some choices to make: Vote on a binding resolution now, and have the president veto or ignore it; or find some other way to end the war. Maybe they're trying to figure out a way to do the latter."
Don't you think it's just a little lame that after the election, after the parties, and after the all-important first 100 hours that the Dhimmicrats are NOW trying to figure out what they want to do about the most important item on the American agenda?

Meanwhile, they are wasting valuable time on a nonbinding resolution whose only purpose is to encourage our enemies, discourage our soldiers in the field, and do a little political grandstanding for themselves?

Publicus - Interes... (Below threshold)

Publicus -

Interesting projection on your part based on my comment - I can practically hear the sound of your ax grinding, as you seek out my sinister hidden agenda and erect your straw man.

Since you are not willing to accept my words at face value, I don't feel the need to respond to your attempted assignment.

I am curious, though - which of your servants did you mistake me for?

We're talking about send... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

We're talking about sending reinforcements which the troops have requested.

Okay, fine, "reinforcements".

What amazes me is this apparent idea you have that there are only two options: increasing troops levels or cutting and running which leads to Al Qaeda taking over Iraq. That is, of course, a Hobson's Choice.

The ISG gave the President an opportunity to craft a bipartisan approach to the war that would make the Democrats equally responsible for its success or failure. Instead, he has (once again) chosen his "go it alone" approach and is finding even previously loyal Republican congressmen unwilling to sign on. As Senator Brownback repeatedly says, this country needs a bipartisan approach to the war in Iraq in order to be successful there.

And I challenge the notion that the commanders on the ground requested 20,000 additional troops. I don't believe it. It should be plainly obvious that this plan was dreamed up by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and the White House. Military men DO NOT THINK in terms of incrementalism. They think in terms of overwhelming force and the application of massive firepower to defeat the enemy in the shortest time possible.

This plan sounds like LBJ picking bombing targets in the White House all over again.

kevino--I don't ha... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

kevino--

I don't have the "inside word" on what Congress is actually thinking. As I said, I'm guessing.

Regarding Congressional powers and the war, my reading of the Constitution says that Congress can end the war by cutting off funds. But nobody's going by my reading. So, if the President says that he's continuing the war, regardless of what Congress does, because he's sworn to protect the American people...well, the war might just go on.

The very simple, straightfoward words of the Constitution: "Congress declares war" has been pretty much ignored by all presidents of both parties for years. So, I'm not confident that the War Powers Act...however noble it's intent...will do any good here.

Mike--Nice to know... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mike--

Nice to know that, if we had just sacrificed thousand of more American troops in Vietnam for a few more years, the Vietnamese would have surrendered. I we would have won...what, exactly?

I guess, today instead of living under the yoke of communism, we'd be buying clothing from the Vietnamese at the Gap.

"Nice to know that, if we h... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Nice to know that, if we had just sacrificed thousand of more American troops in Vietnam for a few more years, the Vietnamese would have surrendered. I we would have won...what, exactly?"

Your total indifference to millions of innocent Vietnamese lives lost after the fall of Saigon is norrifying.

And that's just the first item on the list, not the only.

"Regarding Congressional po... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Regarding Congressional powers and the war, my reading of the Constitution says that Congress can end the war by cutting off funds. But nobody's going by my reading."

Again, bullshit. Congress entirely retains the power to cut off funding, and nobody knows that better than Speaker Pelosi.

Their continued refusal to actually try and stop the war that they claim they want stopped, when they have the authority to, is exactly why DJ has been calling them 'cowards' today. If the majority Congressional Democrats truly believe the war needs to be over, they should try to end it. If they truly believe it needs to be fought, they should let those are fighting it fight it.

What they're doing now is cowardly obstructionist bullcrap that neither shits nor gets off the pot.

"The very simple, straightfoward words of the Constitution: "Congress declares war" has been pretty much ignored by all presidents of both parties for years."

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Authorization To Use Military Force In Iraq *is* a legal declaration of war.

Seriously, do you ever get anything right ever? You are batting a thousand re: misinformation.

Chuckg--Y... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

Your total indifference to millions of innocent Vietnamese lives lost after the fall of Saigon is norrifying.

Your total indifference to the loss of millions of Vietnamese due to our intervention is horrifying. Your total indifference to the loss of life (name any country that has problems where we're not invading) is horrifying.

Seriously, do you really expect me to believe that people like you are concerned about Iraq because you have a special soft-spot for the Iraqi people? Of all the suffering people in the world? In your heart, you know that's not true.

Again, bullshit. C... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Again, bullshit. Congress entirely retains the power to cut off funding, and nobody knows that better than Speaker Pelosi.

I hope you are right. More importantly, I hope we get a chance to find out.

BTW Chuckg...You d... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

BTW Chuckg...

You don't want to debate me on the Constitution, the Declaration or the Federalist papers...trust me.

And you don't need to. Just read them. (and not just the words in them you like.)

I know ALL about what the C... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I know ALL about what the Constitution says.

Here's the thing: I'm dubious about how much of the Constitution is still in effect when the attorney general of the United States, who head up the Justice Department (sic), says we the people don't have the right of habeas corpus.

I wouldn't boast about "The... (Below threshold)

I wouldn't boast about "The Federalist" if I were you, Pubs.

After all, the pen name used by the three was "Publius", not "Publicus"

That's hardly an auspicious opening for you.

"Your total indifference to... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Your total indifference to the loss of millions of Vietnamese due to our intervention is horrifying."

Right. So, if we'd just never gone there at all, the North Vietnamese would never have invaded South Vietnam, and everything would be hunky-dory. Never mind that those pesky history books say that the war had been going on for years before we ever got there, that's just crazy talk.

Seriously, do you just live in your own alternate timeline or what?

"Your total indifference to the loss of life (name any country that has problems where we're not invading) is horrifying."

Ah, yes -- because we cannot do everything simultaneously and instantly, we therefore lack the moral /imprimatur/ to do anything. This is the 'logic' of apathy and hypocrisy, and I reject it.

"Seriously, do you really expect me to believe that people like you are concerned about Iraq because you have a special soft-spot for the Iraqi people? Of all the suffering people in the world? In your heart, you know that's not true."

*bwahahahahahahahahahaha*

And now you're reading minds over the Internet! (As well as demonizing everybody who doesn't agree with you as somehow being incampable of compassion or empathy, i.e., sociopathic.)

Way to go, Kreskin.

Publicus - I don't think yo... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Publicus - I don't think you are so dense that you do not understand the point of the post. I think you wish to ignore it. Chuckg gets it.

This is to Publicus-<... (Below threshold)
Screejay:

This is to Publicus-

You just stated not to debate you on the constitution ... etc.. "don't go there".

Fine, don't debate me on asymmetrical warfare. You are the person on the bad side. Do you realize that? "Limbs lost, children sent to war", all the mantra of a defeatist attitude that is the only thing the opposing forces can win.

Chuckg"In other... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Chuckg

"In other words, no, Bush did not 'want to invade Iraq first', so don't even try."

I'll try, Chuckg because you don't know what you are talking about.

Paul O,Neill, in his book, talked about the Bush Admin' focus on deposing Saddam started almost from Day 1 in January 2001. Richard Clarke gives comparable indications.

When Bush had his DOD briefing as prez-elect, the only briefing the Bush people wanted W to get was about Iraq, notwithstanding that there was an entire world about which to be briefed.

On the afternoon of 9/11, Rumsfeld told his aides to search anything & everything that might show Saddam's fingerprints.

In the end, they had to do Afghanistan first because the evidence turned out to "inconveniently" point there rather than Iraq.

It just took a little longer to cherry-pick the WMD intelligence, drum up unfounded and unproved suggestions of AQ linkage to Iraq, along w/ yellow-cake lies and visions of mushroom clouds dancing in the minds of the American public to corral this nation into an invasion of Iraq.

I can't believe people like... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I can't believe people like Publicus who base their entire life and arguments on polls by the antique MSM when they know that everytime you check the raw numbers you find that the pollsters polled the people, and ask the questions, the knew would give them the result they desire. It happens 99.9% of the time. Didn't the dhimmi exit polls teach you anything? Give a radical dhimmi a form and a pencil and they'll make the poll to fit their political wet dreams. Give a politiciam a forum and they lie to meet the polls they are too stupid to see as phony.

Right now there is only one man in D.C. that is not poll driven because he has the common sense to know the polls are driven by fantasy seekers.

The recent vote for the new commander for Iraq should wake up even the most stupid in the country. The members of the United States congress do not support their own convictions.
They vote to ban the president from sending reinforcements to Iraq and then vote 100% (those with the guts to vote as they are paid to do) to support the man who came up with and will lead the reinforcement plan. Duh.

Every person that displayed this stupidity should pack their bags, go home, get a job at McDonalds and stay out of public life.

Today the Dhimmi+ a couple of RINO politicians in the United States congress are more dangerous to the freedom of people in the United States than all of the terrorists rolled into one. The dhimmi's are really well trained to roll over and kiss the A** of the enemy who given the chance and the means would kill every person in the U.S. Is this the idea's taught by the brain dead now running the American education system?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no Answer. I'm taking a poll.

.. and just because I'm fee... (Below threshold)

.. and just because I'm feeling cranky, the wording reads "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), it notably does not cite this as a right.

This is why Habeus Corpus has been denied before, without so much as a scratch on the U.S. Constitution.

Further, Gonzalez made his statements in the context of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. As foreign nationals, such persons do not enjoy the rights of U.S. citizens. This was a significant point under debate, and the dunderful Senator Specter was trying to imply that foreign actors apprehended in the act of terrorism might nonetheless enjoy the same rights as U.S. citizens arrested by the police.

Next time, try some context!

I don't like stumping for... (Below threshold)

I don't like stumping for candidates, but from what I have recently read & seen of Tom Coburn (R-OK) makes me wish we had a lot more men like him. He went into the Senate wanting to make social changes, but put that aside when he realized that nothing can be done in a nation that is fiscally out of control as ours.

He is a regular with Porkbusters, spearheaded the movement to get the federal budget on the internet, and all in all is doing everything to stop the Republicans and the Democrats both from spending this country into the ground.

On top of all of that, he comes back to Oklahoma every weekend and, because congressional rules disallow lawyers & doctors from making money while in Congress, runs his doctor practice for free. For free, folks. Every weekend.

If only there were more like him, that put aside self gain & self glory for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

DJ Drummond--Thank... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond--

Thanks, but of course I know about Publius. I use Publicus instead because I think it would be a bit presumptuous to put myself in the same league as Madison, Hamilton, Hay, etc.

Seriously, I keep a copy of the Federalist Papers by my bedside; not to debate people about politics, really. It's actually a GREAT book!

"Paul O,Neill, in his book,... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Paul O,Neill, in his book, talked about the Bush Admin' focus on deposing Saddam started almost from Day 1 in January 2001. Richard Clarke gives comparable indications."

And both of them deliberately omitted that theoretical discussions and roundtables on how to depose Saddam Hussein had started in Washington DC at least as early as *1998*, after the Iraqi Liberation Act was signed by then-President Clinton. (Not to mention that the military routinely composes and updates theoretical contingency plans for the invasion of pretty much any country except Great Britain.)

On the other hand, *ACTAL STRATEGY FOR ACTUALLY INVADING IRAQ*, as opposed to theoretical discussion, did not start until several months after we attacked Afghanistan.

As stated by the man who was the commanding general for both the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions.

Common sense would indicate that the person in a best position to know WTF was actually talking about attacking where when is the military commander of the attack. Your other reports are of much more doubtful authenticity.(*)

(*) In the sense that 'The people you cited are less likely to know WTF they're talking about', not in the sense of 'The people you cited did not actually say what you said they said.' I'll grant you that both of them have indeed said what you claimed.

They're just both, you know, full of shit.

aRepukedo you reme... (Below threshold)
Screejay:

aRepuke

do you remember what targets we were bombing during desert fox (1998)?

Iraq regime change? I think that was passed. Long before POTUS took office.

Chuckg--I am aware... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

I am aware of the history of Vietnam. I know how the French had a great time there before us, etc. Here's where we differ: I don't think we added anything worthwhile to the carnage.

DJ Drummond--Regar... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond--

Regarding habeas corpus, this is one of our unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration. It is a right that we have as human beings; it is not a right granted by the government and cannot be (legally) taken away by the government.

Here's a problem many people have: they believe that our rights are limited to those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Many patriots opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that people would make this mistake. But, rights and powers not specifically allocated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People.

Publicus:Does Cong... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Publicus:

Does Congress have the authority to cut funds?
Yes, absolutely.

Does Congress have the authority to act under the Constitution by declaring the Iraq war over and Iraq becomes captured territory?
Yes.

Will Congress act?
Possibly (probably) not. They don't appear to have the guts to accept the consequences of their actions and give up their political advantages for retaking the White House.

Are they prepared to keep making excuses while they shovel more young men and women into Iraq to be killed?
Apparently, yes. More American casualties translates into more American unhappiness with the GOP, and that translates into more Dhimmicratic votes in the Fall of 2008.

You latest excuse is beyond lame: namely, that Constitutional controls may not apply as the AG doesn't seem to understand the Constitution.
If you really believe that then you need to write your representatives and push for a show-down with the White House over the Iraq. We owe it to future generations to push for the Constitutional crisis. Meanwile, I suggest that you fashion a tin foil hat before the CIA gets a lock on you, and they take you away in the black helicopters to one of the GOP re-education camps.

Here's a hint: if we really lived in the kind of police state that you're hinting at, there wouldn't have been an election in 2006, and DNC leaders would be dead or in a CIA prison camp.

Further, Gonzalez ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Further, Gonzalez made his statements in the context of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.

The Declaration says that ALL men are created equal (not just U.S. citizens) and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights...etc.

The French, as always, ran ... (Below threshold)

The French, as always, ran away.

cf Algeria.

I agree that "The Federalist" is a great read. I also note that it must be read at length, and its lessons considered.

Important ideas cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker.

I strongly suspect Michael Moore never read "The Federalist", because it was quite beyond his level.

So after spending years ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So after spending years screaming that President Bush didn't send enough troops, you now bitterly oppose any effort to send more troops.

What a silly comment.

Do you not acknowledge that there's a difference between sending more troops at the early stages when they're requested and when they can prevent certain badness from happening, and sending them years later after strategy A has failed, when they're no longer being requested and that certain badness has already occurred?

kevino--I have don... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

kevino--

I have done just that. I have repeatedly written to one of my senators, Arlen Specter, about protecting the Constitution. He kept saying how important that is, and voiced concerns about violations of the Constitution...but never voted or took any other actions to protect the Constitution (or as I would suggest, restore it.)

Specter was head of the committee at that time; now he's just another member.

I agree that "The ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
I agree that "The Federalist" is a great read. I also note that it must be read at length, and its lessons considered.

Important ideas cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker.

DJ Drummand --

This is why I stay here. Yeah, I'm not wild about being called "a piece of sh!t" (by some people, not you!), but I actually have faith that many people with different opinions are sincere and smart.

And anybody who appreciates the Federalist Papers I can't help but think of as a friend, whatever his politics...

"Here's where we differ: I ... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Here's where we differ: I don't think we added anything worthwhile to the carnage."

Yes -- *BUT*, the lack of reuslts was because we left too soon, not because we went there at all.

That was the entire original point of invoking Vietnam in this thread... to outline how, if we gave up on Iraq now, we would be repeating the exact same type of strategic error that led to the tragedy of postwar Vietnam.

Whereas if the media hadn't hallucinated defeat out of victory at Tet, and if the US public hadn't allowed themselves to buy into the defeatism, *they* would have been surrendering to *us* in a couple of years, not vice versa.

And now, way too many Democrats want us to do THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN IN IRAQ. To defeat ourselves, when nobody else can.

The insurgents have never yet defeated us in any military sense. But thanks to you and people like you, they can still beat us in the political sense.

People like me, otoh, want the US to leave a war only after we've won it.

Let me make sure I understa... (Below threshold)

Let me make sure I understand you, Publicus:

You contend that a pre-Constitutional document has the right to declare the status and rights of persons who are not American citizens, simply because it makes a moral argument?

I rather suspect you have not passed the bar, if you think so!

"Do you not acknowledge tha... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Do you not acknowledge that there's a difference between sending more troops at the early stages when they're requested and when they can prevent certain badness from happening, and sending them years later after strategy A has failed, when they're no longer being requested [...]"

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? The 'surge' *IS* being requested, *RIGHT NOW*. By the ground force commanders in Iraq! (Both the departing one, and the arriving one.)

Goddamit, now I'm remembering why I stopped arguing in comment threads. Because you g-d liberals just keep ignoring the real world and making up 'facts' with which to construct your virtual ones.

kevino--I don't be... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

kevino--

I don't believe we are in a police state. I just think the Constitution has been damaged (and this has happened before, and the country fixed it).

I'm not that pessimistic. Particularly during wartime, the Constitution gets a workout, even by good people (like Lincoln!). It's distressing, but as long as we ultimately fix it, the country continues.

Whatever you think of him, Rehnguist wrote a very interesting book about it: "All The Laws But One."

See! He's not exactly a liberal hero, but I read his book. And found it interesting!

... and as to Habeus Corpus... (Below threshold)

... and as to Habeus Corpus, your problem is that the Constitution did specifically address it, remember I noted its location and its definition as a "privilege", not a right.

It's instructive to consult the Declaration of Independence, provided one remembers that the Declaration, for all its moral value, has no standing as a legal document for the United States Government.

This is one reason why the Bill of Rights was so critical; it was understood that once in place, the Constitution became the single foundation for American law, and except that the Constitution be amended, all U.S. law defers to it. The Declaration actually was created and applied to the Confederation of States which came into [temporary] being with the secession from Britain. It quite literally applied to a different nation!

You contend that a... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
You contend that a pre-Constitutional document has the right to declare the status and rights of persons who are not American citizens, simply because it makes a moral argument?

Your argument is with the founding fathers, not me. I consider the Declaration to be a key document, outlining the intent of the founders. The Constitution is a practical document, designed to try to realize the ideals of the Declaration in a real-world government.

It's official -- Publius is... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

It's official -- Publius is posting from an alternate universe.

DJ Drummond----I w... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond----

I would contend that the Constitution was not created to reverse the ideals of the founders as outlined in the Declaration. It was created to better realize them, i.e. create a more perfect union.

As far as habeas corpus being a privilege...the question is, granted by whom? I would argue that it was an unalienable right granted by our Creater (whether God or Nature); not something given to us by our overlords in the government.

Sorry Publicus, but you see... (Below threshold)

Sorry Publicus, but you seem to have forgotten some of "The Federalist". You may recall that some folks were talking as you seem to be now, that the Declaration of Independence and the Confederation of States was fine as it stood in 1781, and no Constitution was necessary. The creation of a Federal government was brought about by the creation and ratification of the new Constitution, which - and this is the critical point - by its ratification replaced everything which existed before it, so far as American government is concerned.

As a result, in any place where the Declaration ran against the Constitution, the ratified Constitution was the law. I'm not saying this was right in all places; such reasoning after all led to the Dred Scott decision. But it is a critical component to putting together the rights and limits of American government.

AG Alberto Gonzales and his... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

AG Alberto Gonzales and his interpretation of our Constitution is the Republicans' best argument for Immigration reform...and ex post facto...at once.

The creation of a ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The creation of a Federal government was brought about by the creation and ratification of the new Constitution, which - and this is the critical point - by its ratification replaced everything which existed before it, so far as American government is concerned.

My understanding is the the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. (this was quite a bit thing, because the Constitutional Congress had been asked to only amend the Articles.)

I had not heard that it in any way affected the Declaration. I DO know that years later, Jefferson said he couldn't take too much credit for the Declaration. The contents, particularly the ideas about Natural Rights, was simply a popular and widespread concept shared by most people in the (then) colonies. Which is why he said "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

I think we have a BIG problem if we are to believe that we only have the rights outlined in the Constitution; my understanding is that all rights are derived from WE THE PEOPLE and the government only has the powers that we specifically delegate to it.

Publicus:Then you ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Publicus:

Then you agree that Congress has the authority to act. Yes?

What possible reasons are there for their inaction?
1. Dhimmicrats have been lying to the American people all along. They voted for war, they secretly support the war, but they said what they said to get elected.
2. Dhimmicrats want to stop the war, but they are happy to undermine our troops on the battlefield based on the calculus that higher American casualties increases their political fortunes.
3. Dhimmicrats simply don't have the guts to act.
4. Two of the above or all of the above.

Are there any other possibilities?

kevino--I think it... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

kevino--

I think it's difficult to know people's motives. But which of the 4 do you think is the explanation for what's happening?

I think the context of the ... (Below threshold)

I think the context of the words may be giving you trouble. These days we tend to think we know what "right" and "privilege" mean, but many people do not.

For instance, I was not entirely happy when President Clinton was impeached. Oh, I knew he was guilty of the charges, but there is an implicit privilege to the office which should be observed at all times. That is, putting a sitting President on trial may be done, but only under certain carefully considered conditions and instances, and I was never completely satisfied that the situation warranted the act. Maybe yes, maybe no, but for sure I think it should have been considered more carefully.

The difference, Constitutionally, between 'rights' and 'privileges' is that rights may never be prohibited, while privileges might, under certain circumstances. It is also a critical component to understand who holds standing under the U.S. Constitution.

Never in the field of human... (Below threshold)

Never in the field of human conflict was so much ignored by so few that risked so many.

By the way, the Instapundit... (Below threshold)
kevino:

By the way, the Instapundit has a link to an NRO piece that points out the General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as head of the Iraq forces.

Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission.

Heh!

["Heh! is a registered trademark of Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit]

Publicus:What othe... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Publicus:

What other possibilities exist?

I've just painted a picture of Dhimmicrats as either homicidal, power-hungry maniacs or gutless wimps. Which do you prefer?

Cutting to the chase, Publi... (Below threshold)

Cutting to the chase, Publicus.

The Minoac Code never applied to the United States.

The Law of Rome never applied to the United States.

The Napoleonic Code never applied to the United States.

The 1689 Bill of Rights in England does not apply to the United States.


Why?

Because none of those acts were ever undertaken by the United States government. And the Declaration of Independence, while important, has no more legal standing than the "Federalist" papers we have been discussing, or any of Tom Paine's pamphlets.

I think the contex... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
I think the context of the words may be giving you trouble.

Indeed, you may be right! Certainly "privilege" does seem to be something less secure than an unalienable right. Something for me to think about.

If legally habeas corpus is not an unalienable right, then I want to go on record as saying I believe the law needs to be changed.

Regarding language and impeachment, I've always been confused, and somewhat amused by the impeachment-related phrase "high crimes and misdemeanoers". We can impeach over a "misdemeanor"?! Somewhere, later, I read that the word meant something else in that time and context...but I don't remember what...

More about habeas corpus --

The Constitution, of course, lists situations where habeas corpus may be suspended (rebellion or invasion); neither applies. So, if we contend that habeas corpus ONLY applies to U.S. citizens (because we see it as a Constitutional right, not an unalienable one), then legally we could deny habeas corpus to any non-U.S. citizen (not just at Gitmo). At the same time, we would have to honor habeas corpus for any American citizen, even if the president called him a terrorist.

Whaddya think?!

DJ Drummond--If yo... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DJ Drummond--

If you think the Federalist Papers has not standing, then you must oppose the conservative judicial philosophy of "original intent", because those papers reveal what the issues and their intents were.

I would also argue that the Declaration is strongly suggestive of the original intent of the founders.

No LEGAL standing. He said... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

No LEGAL standing. He said, no LEGAL standing. You are playing editing games for the purpose of misrepreseting people. That is reprehensible.

Chuckg--Reprehensi... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

Reprehensible? Don't you think that's a bit harsh? I think we're having a fine mutually repsectful discussion here between people who have different opinons...

What the hell kind of no... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? The 'surge' *IS* being requested, *RIGHT NOW*. By the ground force commanders in Iraq!

*sigh*

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

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html

When your bipartisan panel came to the conclusion that relying on Iraqi forces and embedding U.S. advisers was the right course of action, rather than a surge, did you think that you were reflecting the consensus of the U.S. military at the time?

Yes. We sat down with military commanders there and here, and none of them said that additional troops would solve the fundamental cause of violence, which was the absence of national reconciliation. We always asked if additional troops were needed. We asked the question of [Gen. George] Casey and others, we asked it of Marine commanders in Anbar. Do you need additional troops? They all said the same thing: we don't need additional troops at this point; we need to get the Iraqis to assume the responsibility they're supposed to assume ...

Did you interview Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take over command of multinational forces in Iraq? What did he recommend? He is now said to be a supporter of the surge.

At that time he was talking about the need to train and embed U.S. forces in the Iraqi army. (laughs)

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16543049/site/newsweek/

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq

www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html

The approval of a troop increase plan by top Iraq commanders, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, comes days before Bush unveils a new course for the troubled U.S. involvement in Iraq. .... The U.S. command in Iraq decided to recommend an increase of troops several days ago, prior to meetings in Baghdad this week with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ... Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops, and the decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East who will step down in March, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq, arguing that it could delay the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world.

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops23dec23,0,2095230.story?coll=la-home-headlines

In other words, the generals publicly opposed a surge, but after being told that Bush was going to propose a surge anyway, they suddenly supported it. (Except for the fired one.)

No interpretation of that chain of events can reasonably be described as the generals "requesting" the surge.

Let's not forget:

Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.

apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8M9VVQO0.html

However, when the military did request more troops at the beginning, Rumsfeld said no.

Goddamit, now I'm remembering why I stopped arguing in comment threads. Because you g-d liberals just keep ignoring the real world and making up 'facts' with which to construct your virtual ones.

No, I think it's because you can't handle when reality contradicts the made-up "facts" that you've comforted yourself with.

I did say "legal sta... (Below threshold)

I did say "legal standing", Publicus, just as I also said it was "important". As in, a judge would be well within reason to cite the Declaration in an interpretation of what the Constitution meant in some fine point.

As to Habeus Corpus, I think we are agreed that U.S. Citizens enjoy HC except under the 'rebellion or invasion' provisions. However, participation against U.S. troops as a terrorist would constitute 'rebellion' pretty clearly. Note I am not talking about speech or opinion which was unpopular, but the active participation in a violent act or plot against the United States. Further, I stress again that AG Gonzalez was responding to a rather foolish attempt by Specter to extend Constitutional rights to people who want nothing to do with the United States, and who could not conceivably be considered willing to comply with U.S. law in any sense. I do not have the rights of a Saudi citizen when I am abroad, and a captured foreign terrorist does not enjoy the rights of an American citizen.

Brian:General Petr... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

Brian:

General Petraeus openly supported the surge on national TV just this week, during his confirmation hearings. If Leon Panetta says he didn't, then he is a boldfaced liar on that point, which leads me to distrust all his other claims.

"Reprehensible? Don't you t... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"Reprehensible? Don't you think that's a bit harsh?"

No. You deliberatley edited DJ's statement about legal standing for the purpose of twisting what he was trying to say, and such an act is contemptible and dishonest. And he's being far, far politer with you about it than I would be.

However, participa... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
However, participation against U.S. troops as a terrorist would constitute 'rebellion' pretty clearly.

Your point is a good one, but not clear cut. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the South, there certainly WAS a rebellion going on. Yet, the court ultimately ruled against him. Why?

Now I'm working on memory, and I need coffee so you might want to check me on this...

I think it was Justice Taney who said that the writ COULD be suspended, but this power to suspend belonged to the legislative branch, not the executive. Regardless of this, I think we still would want to have some standard for suspending habeas corpus even when it is legally allowed; I certainly think that locking someone up simply because the president calls someone a terrorist wouldn't be enough. I like the standard of "probable cause", which is the standard for getting a warrant.

Really, would you want ANY president to be able to lock up any foreigner base on his opinion that the guy was a terrorist. I mean, if the President weren't Bush, but someone you don't trust?

And, if you were an honest, law-abiding foreigner, wouldn't you be reluctant to visit the U.S. under these circumstances?

As for General Abizaid bein... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

As for General Abizaid being 'fired'... *rolleyes*

A usual term for a theater commander-in-chief is 3 to 4 years. General Abizaid became CENTCOM in July 2003. Do the freakin' math.

Chuckg--So be it. ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Chuckg--

So be it. I can only say that I know my own intent and it was not the nefarious one you are attributing to me...

Just went and looked it up:... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

Just went and looked it up:

CENTCOM

Robert C. Kingston -- January 1, 1983 to November 27, 1985

George B. Crist -- November 27, 1985 to November 23, 1988

H. Norman Schwarzkopf -- November 23, 1988 to August 9, 1991

Joseph P. Hoar -- August 9, 1991 to August 5, 1994

J.H. Binford Peay III -- August 5, 1994 to August 13, 1997

Anthony Zinni -- August 13, 1997 to July 6, 2000

Tommy Franks -- July 6, 2000 to July 7, 2003

John Abizaid -- July 7, 2003, scheduled to retire in March 2007

That supposedly 'fired' general will in fact have SERVED A LONGER TERM AS CENTCOM THAN ANY OF HIS PREDECESSORS EVER DID, EVEN SCHWARZKOPF.

Sheesh!

Depends, Publicus.... (Below threshold)

Depends, Publicus.

Remember that Taney was rather emotionally involved in the fight with Lincoln. As happens sometimes, people in an argument escalate the conflict and make something personal on a very big level. Taney had no basis to claim that the Legislature possessed the power, any more than Lincoln did that he held that power. The Constitution is silent on that point, and the matter was not resolved at that time. Look at the question re Japanese citizens in WW2; the courts upheld the internment [and denial of habeas corpus in thousands of cases], which was a purely Executive decision by FDR. Since it was never overturned, by precedent that pretty much handed the keys to the President, though I hope nothing like that could happen now.

Also, the actions for which a person would be sent to Guantanamo hardly depended on the President's opinion; it was what they were doing when Coalition forces caught them. Anyone, say, with bomb-making materials in Fallujah would have a hard time arguing they were the same as a bewspaper editor in the Bronx.

Good legal point about the ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Good legal point about the Court's ruling on the Japanese internment!

it was what they were doing when Coalition forces caught them

I think THIS is the very problem. Who says what they were doing? Who's word are we taking? Can those people be cross-examined? Etc.

Who knows, right now, what those people who are at Gitmo were doing when they were caught. It's all very secret. Maybe some were terrorists and others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some prisoners were released years later with no charges being filed. I mean, OOPS, big time!

It's difficult because we really want to catch the bad guys (especially before they do more harm), but we don't want to imprison or worse, torture innocent people.

"I think THIS is the very p... (Below threshold)
Chuckg:

"I think THIS is the very problem. Who says what they were doing? Who's word are we taking? Can those people be cross-examined? Etc."

Am I the only person here who actually /read/ the detainee act?

Synopsis: Gitmo detainees get to appeal to the 1st District appellate court, and if that fails, then to the US Supreme Court. The appeals hearings have defense attorneys (who must be US citizens) and the prosecution must show evidence.

As happens sometim... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
As happens sometimes, people in an argument escalate the conflict and make something personal on a very big level.

DJ Drummond --

I think you and I are doing a better job than Lincoln and Taney on that point--not making it personal!

Publicus, now you are confu... (Below threshold)

Publicus, now you are confusing the military with the police.

I'm not aware of POWs facing criminal charges, but they were still held in camps. And these guys are not even state actors, but NGO terrorists.

Bottom line, I look at the number captured and the available evidence, and I do not see a violation. I do see some (deliberate?) blurring of definitions by people who seem intent on creating a scandal where one does not exist.

Synopsis: Gitmo de... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Synopsis: Gitmo detainees get to appeal to the 1st District appellate court, and if that fails, then to the US Supreme Court. The appeals hearings have defense attorneys (who must be US citizens) and the prosecution must show evidence.

Thanks, Chuckg! Of course, to evaluate all this, we'd need more detail about any special rules for these courts, etc. I believe there was some concern that the rules of evidence allowed prosecutors to convict based on hearsay or even coerced convictions extracted during "interrogations."

But I'm not drawing any conclusions about the rules or their fairness without more information.

I'm afraid that I have to g... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I'm afraid that I have to go now, but I'd like to thank all of you, especially DJ Drummond.

I can't remember the last time I had such stimulating conversation. Have a great night!

Which brings us back to DJ'... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Which brings us back to DJ's initial premise:

We have a Congress full of cowards.

The majority in Congress do not support the war.
Congress has the authority to get our soldiers out of Iraq.
And yet (apparently) they will not do so because they don't have the guts or because they are willing get our soldiers killed to gain political advantage over Republicans.

All of the tough talk from the Left for the past several years is just that: talk.
And for the next two years we will get more talk.

How can we trust the Left to safeguard our national security when they don't have the guts to present a plan for combating Islamic extremists or the guts to act to end the war on Iraq? If the Left doesn't have the guts to stand up to the American public, how will they stand up to determined young men with guns?

Jim Webb is a great man and... (Below threshold)

Jim Webb is a great man and he delivered an incredible speech. Unlike the president, he was truthful.

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

Really, would you want ANY president to be able to lock up any foreigner base on his opinion that the guy was a terrorist. I mean, if the President weren't Bush, but someone you don't trust?

We place a whole lot of trust in whoever the President is, particularly since the deployment of nuclear armed ICBM's, which once launch, cannot be recalled. Is there a judge, a general, a bureaucrat or a lawmaker you would trust that responsibility with? It seems you're arguing that the President can be entrusted with such a weapon, but not with the authority to declare someone a terrorist.

I fully expect the President is just acting on the advice of the CIA, FBI, or other government officials and has no personal animosity against such persons. Could he make mistakes, you bet. Have courts been known to make mistakes, you bet. As long as justice depends on humans there are going to be mistakes where the guilty go free and the innocent are punished.

Brian , no wonder you a... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Brian , no wonder you are stupid. Look at your sources. You can't even attempt to think for yourself, you just copy/paste words from Democrat propagandists. Times? Raw Sewage? give me a break.

"I can understand some people would say, "Oh, there ought to be more," or, "There ought to be less." Gen. Abizaid and Gen.Casey are absolutely convinced, and said so publicly, that they would worry if there were more U.S. forces there, because it would require more force protection, more support troops, more targets, a heavier footprint, a more intrusive occupation force that would further alienate Iraqi people from the coalition forces and what they're trying to do."

Brian , all you want to do is cry and moan, argue and disrespect President Bush. Democrats must do all they can to bring George W Bush down to their level not only to influence an election (which worked) but just to make themselves feel good in the proccess. President Bush is "COMMANDER IN CHIEF" , HE BEAT AL GORE IN 2000 AND FRAUD KERRY IN 2004 , GET OVER IT.

"No, I think it's because you can't handle when reality contradicts the made-up "facts" that you've comforted yourself with."

What's your reality consist of Brian?

Mine as of the last three years has been one of watching and hearing ugly and unhinged democrats falling all over themselves for camera time as they cry , lie and beg for their Power back. False claim after false claim repeated day after day by the Democrat Media even after proven false and even then , no retraction or apologies on any front cover.

Publicus,

"I can only say that I know my own intent and it was not the nefarious one you are attributing to me..."

I believe you believe that.

Say, how about those interment camps?

Mine as of the last thre... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Mine as of the last three years has been one of watching and hearing ugly and unhinged democrats falling all over themselves for camera time as they cry , lie and beg for their Power back. False claim after false claim repeated day after day by the Democrat Media even after proven false and even then , no retraction or apologies on any front cover.

Wow, so if these false claims are so rampant, then you'll have no trouble reprinting them here, one by one, right?

General Petraeus openly ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

General Petraeus openly supported the surge on national TV just this week, during his confirmation hearings.

Some "support" that is. "Dire but not hopeless". Yeah, he's a real supporter. It's sooo impossible to believe that he didn't support the surge before he was up for confirmation, and when the entire Senate and national television weren't focused on him. Even though there were witnesses to his non-support.

If Leon Panetta says he didn't, then he is a boldfaced liar on that point

Right, because someone who publicly states something that you choose not to believe is obviously a liar. Never mind that no one from the Iraq Study Group, including Republican members, have disputed what Panetta said.

But what of Casey, clearly on the public record? What of the Joint Chiefs? Convenient how you focus your denial on those who you can just hand-wave away.

And I'll remind you, you claimed that the surge was being "requested by the ground force commanders in Iraq". Being "requested" and being "supported after it's already announced" are two separate things. Oh, but there go those "facts" again, getting in the way.

PoliticalCritic ,<p... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

PoliticalCritic ,

"Jim Webb is a great man and he delivered an incredible speech. Unlike the president, he was truthful."

Wrong! He was not truthful. His speech was delivered well while it contained non factual statements but to a democrat , the more the better.


PolCritic , you are a liar and a coward. Have some guts and call yourself what you are ...a democrat kiss ass. Your cute little post was nothing more than your way to disrespect President Bush and call him a liar . Webb is an arrogant asshole full of hate like Chuck Hagel. Is he a great man too?

Exactly what leads you to believe he is a "Great Man" with just days on the job? Could it be your a fan of his bizarre writings of a father holding his son upside down ....penis in mouth?
Or do you thing any idiot who spouts off against the President is just great?

Wrong! He was not truthf... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Wrong! He was not truthful. His speech was delivered well while it contained non factual statements but to a democrat , the more the better.

What conatined in Webb's speech was untruthful?

Could it be your a fan o... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Could it be your a fan of his bizarre writings of a father holding his son upside down ....penis in mouth?

Ha ha ha, is that all you have in your minute bag of talking points? The lame attempt at smearing Webb sure worked good for George Allen didn't it?

Rob LA, you aren't fit to polish Webb's boots. He gave more to this country than you ever could.

Brian , the threat of ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Brian , the threat of the surge is already showing signs of success before it has begun. Al Qaeda is buggin out of Baghdad and Sadr's Militia agreed to begin handing in its weapons and complying with Malaki.

"Matar vowed that the make-or-break security plan unveiled by embattled Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki would be implemented without fear or favour as regards the Mahdi Army or anyone else."

Democrats cannot be happy with this "NEWS".

Rob, you just accused Webb ... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Rob, you just accused Webb of lying in his rebuttal speech to the SOTU. I asked you what did he say that was untruthful. Still waiting.

Al Qaeda is buggin out o... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Al Qaeda is buggin out of Baghdad and Sadr's Militia agreed to begin handing in its weapons and complying with Malaki.
Are there really people out there who still think if they clap loud enough, Tinkerbell won't die?

Jaku, "What ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Jaku,

"What conatined in Webb's speech was untruthful?"

Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are.

"Rob LA, you aren't fit to polish Webb's boots."

And you are?

"He gave more to this country than you ever could."

Statement made by ignorant losers who have lost an arguement.

Smearing , lying , fabricating and making false accusations/false praise is what democrats do everytime they open their pie holes. Sounds just like you.

Oh and talking points is a democrat practice like bumper sticker slogans dopey. Liars like the democrat party of perpetual fraud and their Media must get their talking points straight as if you didn't know.

"clinton-Gore's Laws of Gravitas

by Mia T

As soon as it became clear that Dick Cheney would be George W. Bush's choice for vice-presidential running mate, the clinton-Gore agitprop machine went into full attack mode. Democratic hack gasbags--Kerr(e)ys and Cuomo--and airheads--Boxer and Murray. . .and, of course, the useful idiots of the press from Alter to Hunt to Clift. . .began expelling in unison all manner of gaseous meshugaas concerning GRAVITAS, no doubt the latest talking-point nonsense faxed from the clinton-clinton-Gore White-House War Room."


Run along now silly Rat.

"The recommendations of the... (Below threshold)
stevenb:

"The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is the sort of policy on Iraq that could get majority support in this country. A gradual drawdown of our forces while doing everything we can to prop up the Iraqi government."

Well, no. The ISG actually suggested that a surge of 20,000 troops might be necessary, as part of their larger strategy, in order to increase the training/support of Iraqi troops, and to provide security and stability is specific areas. As recently as December, a number of Democrats agreed.

Now that Bush implements it, they all back away, and the MSM doesn't even mention that the surge is consistent with the ISG report. Blah.

The ISG actually suggest... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The ISG actually suggested that a surge of 20,000 troops might be necessary, as part of their larger strategy

Yes, but the "larger strategy" is one of withdrawal. Is Bush now implementing that strategy?

I have to tell you that politically we heard some comments, even within the Iraqi Study Group, that while it was questionable a surge could work, it could provide some political cover for withdrawal.
>>"What conatined in Web... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>>"What conatined in Webb's speech was untruthful?"
>Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are.

Ha! Nice dodge there, Rob! Can't even support your own accusations? Boy, Jaku sure called you out and smacked you down on that one! I would say your response is a "statement made by ignorant losers who have lost an arguement [sic]".

Gee, I leave the house to g... (Below threshold)

Gee, I leave the house to go watch a hockey game (go Wild) and what do I find on Wizbang when I get home. The wingnuts getting their ass handed to them. Resorting to that old "you're all a bunch liars" defense doesn't win any debates when you can't back it up.

Tonight I'd have to say round one went to the trolls.

Next time, before you call someone a liar at least be able to counter the lie with some facts. If not, you lost before you even hit the post button.

Brian, And ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Brian,

And the little prick Jaku couldn't even come out accuse President Bush of Lying in his speech, he said like scared little pussy hiding behind his tuff new hero "Great Man".

Oh boy you Rats sure showed me. Dodge?

"He gave more to this country than you ever could."

Brian , now you are just as stupid a fuck as Jaku. That's the problem with you idiots. You don't "KNOW" shit and you certainly don't know anything about me to make such an asinine statement. I'll bet you stupid Communist lovers didn't even have a Clue Webb was a Republican. Now he fits your criteria and worthy of being in the group you imagine in your heads when you and your party repeat the lie "WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS". Fuck you UN-AMERICAN PHONIES. The mud pit is all yours.

[email protected], Shutup ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

[email protected],

Shutup stupid, democrats never admit what is clear as day ,proven by facts , common knowledge and even while their hand is still in the cookie jar they will still deny and lie to your face. Of course you already know that because you are one of them, right lefturd?

Wow Rob you sure do have yo... (Below threshold)

Wow Rob you sure do have your dither in a lather tonight.

I have to ask which "clear as day, proven by facts, common knowledge" are we talking about here?

With out you being able to to back up your statement with some sort of coherently worded argument you just once again lost the debate before you hit the post button.

By the way you on the right have bigger things to worry about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16832257/site/newsweek/

You don't "KNOW" shit an... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You don't "KNOW" shit and you certainly don't know anything about me to make such an asinine statement.

What I "KNOW" about you is that you made an accusation, and when asked to back that up, you started frothing and blathering, dodging and deflecting. You say it's clear as day, common knowledge, and your questioner is stupid for even daring to ask you. Yet you STILL have not responded.

What that shows about you is that you are a liar. But much more than the average right-wing liar, who at least finds a way to spin themselves into self-delusion. You can't even manage that.

And if you care so little about your last shred of shriveling dignity to bother responding to this post, I bet you STILL won't back up your claim. (Though you will probably impotently threaten me with physical harm.) But finally, when you predictably make such a last gasp post, all of the viewers here will know you for who you are, and will sit back and laugh at you.

Meanwhile, back at the actu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Meanwhile, back at the actual premise of the thread, which is summed up by the first sentence in the piece, I have to wonder what the argument is all about. When the Republicans were in the majority the charge of "chickenhawk" was leveled at enough of the lawmakers that I think many on the left would agree with the statement that "We have a Congress full of cowards." Now that Democrats are in the majority, I expect many on the right would agree with that statement. I haven't seen anyone make the argue that the freshmen representatives and senators are such an unusually courageous group that they have changed the very character of Congress.

The terrorists should reall... (Below threshold)
pagar:

The terrorists should really be emboldened by this display of all their American leftist supporters gathered here to make one more effort to defeat America.

Brian, I'm no... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Brian,

I'm not interested in playing your stupid games. You are a liar and a loser and you prove it all by yourself.

"What that shows about you is that you are a liar. But much more than the average right-wing liar, who at least finds a way to spin themselves into self-delusion. You can't even manage that."

You really are that stupid. This makes no sense at all and besides that it doesn't even apply, I'm Registered Democratic you dumbfuck.And don't give a flying fuck whether you believe it or not and the moment you get that dumb feeling you will no doubt call me a liar.

Then.....

"all of the viewers here will know you for who you are, and will sit back and laugh at you."

LOL , is this some sort of threat? Are you threatening me with laughter? Please no not that , think of my approval ratings. What a joke.

Tom Tancredo prete... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Tom Tancredo pretends to be a patriotic American, yet he deliberately attacked President Bush and the priorities of the Republican Party, simply because he failed to hijack the agenda in favor of his personal will.

ie, he disagreed, and is therefore no longer patriotic. Such is the essence of the modern Republican Party.

Mac Lorry:You are ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Mac Lorry:

You are absolutely correct. DJ's original premise says it all:

We have a Congress full of cowards.

Democrats have the power but no guts.
Leftists in this comment thread love to argue about the past, but they have no ideas about what to do with the current situation -- even after winning a big victory in 2006.

Rob, thanks for fulfilling ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Rob, thanks for fulfilling your predicted response, devoid of anything that resembles support for your previous lies. And for jumping right into the desperate role of the liar, that of calling those who expose you liars themselves. Your repeated failure to provide an ounce of support for your lies, though asked time and again, shows you for the truly tiny person that you are. The laughter has begun.

Rob, sputter and spit all y... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Rob, sputter and spit all you like.

Your opinion is neanderthalic, your view of world affairs is tainted by a pathetic fear so typical of ultra right wing chickenhawks, and it doesn't much matter anyway.

We have the votes, we'll have the next Presidency and your failed loser of a President will hopefully do time in front of the Hague for the mess he's made of the world.

"We have the votes, we'll ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"We have the votes, we'll have the next Presidency"

Spoken like a true criminal fraud. Of course you do , just like you have your activist judges. Look at the mess and the lives that your democrat District Attorney Mike Nifong has ruined in hia lust to hold on to power. This is what the Democrat Party is all about, a Party of Un-American Criminal Frauds.


"your failed loser of a President will hopefully do time in front of the Hague for the mess he's made of the world."

Ha ha , OF THE WORLD? LOL, you miserable little maggot. Your stupid partys perpetual fraud parroted by your democrat media are the ones responsible for any perceived global mess. You are just one of the many stupid imbeciles who can't think for themselves and believe what ever your masters tell you.

"Your opinion is neanderthalic, your view of world affairs is tainted by a pathetic fear so typical of ultra right wing chickenhawks, and it doesn't much matter anyway."

Hansel , it sure does seems to matter to you. You have something in common with what actors were refered to back in the Biblical days. Any clue what that was? I tell ya , they were called "HYPOCRITES". I'll give ya credit for recognizing one fact although your description of it is furthest from the truth, "MY OPINION". It's is my opinion based on Historic facts that democrats desparately try to deny and distort and with every passing second in reality. You however can't be bothered and are just incapable to form your own opinion because you just want to be a part of something that is bigger than you. You are a blind follower and a willing slave for the cause.

"so typical of ultra right wing chickenhawks"

Is this what you think I am? Do you think I am a Republican? You are no different than a Racist and the shit you spew is nothing more than "Hate Speach". What the fuck is "Ultra Right Wing"? There is no such thing except that which has been implanted in the minds of drones like you. Your attempts to paint Republicans as equal to or even worse than Democrats is pathetic and see through. It is laughable but I understand exactly why you must do it, most honest and rational people do as well. It's what helped democrats get the Majority in Congress. Democrats did absolutely nothing to merit the Majority they now hold. You know this and so does the Democrat Leadership , they were in the MINORITY all around and our Military had just taken the city of Bagdad and President Bush was in the spot light and the Democrats were basically irrelevant.

Kevino wrote:

"Democrats have the power but no guts.
Leftists in this comment thread love to argue about the past, but they have no ideas about what to do with the current situation -- even after winning a big victory in 2006."


That is exactly right. Democrats have no guts at all. I clearly remember all the attacks in the 90's we did nothing. What they did to regain the Majority was nothing but desperation and took no guts at all. Democrats never had any IDEAS about what to do with the current situation. It wasn't IDEAS that gave them the Majority , it was FRAUD. Having to protect our Country from our enemies is only a burden to their true agenda of holding absolute power and making us dependant entirely on Government , a Government that they control completely. Not in my lifetime.

20yr Registered Democratic Voter who voted for President Bush Nov.2, 2004. Swallow those facts Brian and Hansel2. Deal with it if you can. Good luck.

Once again, sputtering and ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Once again, sputtering and spitting.

Quite a diatribe. Shows you know nothing about the reasons your blessed party (yes, it's your party. You voted for them) is on the outs.

Curse all you want, impotent loser. It means nothing in a world that doesn't support your views. The few true believers on this blog are all you have left.




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