These people are the height of un-American flipfloping SOBs.

No, it's Bush that needs to be stopped, and personally I'm all for whatever it takes. Stop your crying about the evil Democrats and take a good hard, honest look at the mess this administration has the US in. An overextended, undersuppied fighting force wallowing around in the middle of a civil war that we enabled in the first place. The few allies we have are abandoning us. This country is sinking under the weight of reckless debt, poor management and the lack of any realistic vision for the future. The people want change. It's time to stop the bleeding now, whatever it takes and get back on track. Your endless regurgitation of BushCo talking points is sounding more hollow and hopeless with every new post.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

~~ President Abraham Lincoln

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

Hey jp, cut it out. You must be taking those guys out of context.

Query: how can a "resolution" authorizing someone to do something be "repealed." He's already done what the resolution authorized. They can argue about War Powers and the authority to remain on a different mission perhaps. They're just flailing around trying to find a way to grow some balls.

"I've had enough of 'non-binding,'" says Kerry. Watch how slowly he acts to actually do something. What a fraud.

jp, you dumb-ass:

"But Lincoln never said that. The conservative author who touched off the misquotation frenzy, J. Michael Waller, concedes that the words are his, not Lincoln's. Waller says he never meant to put quote marks around them, and blames an editor [at the magazine Insight] for the mistake and the failure to correct it. We also note other serious historical errors in the Waller article containing the bogus quote."

jp,

FYI, the Lincoln quote is totally bogus. He never said that. It's just more desperate projection by the right tyring to gain a little traction in their rapidly accelerated slide away from relevance.

groucho:

No, it's Bush that needs to be stopped, and personally I'm all for whatever it takes.

Bolded above, is the primary malfunction of the argument.

"Stopping Bush at all costs". Forget how much you damage anyone or anything doing it, just fulfill your personal vendetta.

An overextended, undersuppied fighting force wallowing around in the middle of a civil war that we enabled in the first place.

Overextended and undersupplied? Not unless Congress has it's way.

The few allies we have are abandoning us.

There's a difference in doing what's popular and what's right.

This country is sinking under the weight of reckless debt, poor management and the lack of any realistic vision for the future.

*chanelling Kyle* Really!!??

The people want change. It's time to stop the bleeding now, whatever it takes and get back on track.

I thought we were starting the bleeding, beginning with cutting the funds and support from our military. You may want to rethink hamstringing our armed force's ability to fight and to deploy...we may need it in the future.

The ends do not always justify the means.

Of course we should all take the words of a lefty. Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true. Democrats hate the military so much they are coming unhinged. ww

Where did the Senate get this crazy idea?

Like it or not, it is probably the best way to go about bringing the troops home. If they authorized it, they should be able to revoke it.

That said, I highly doubt this would come about. It would take a huge amount of courage and fortitude to pass this legislation, especially with a veto proof margin.

If passed, congress would like they are unilaterally surrendering (they would be), if defeated (likely) their anti-war stance would be refuted and they would have backed themselves into the corner.

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate. Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it. So why anyone would object to us using it to discredit congressmen?

They would be unconstitutionally usurping the president's role as Commander in Chief by giving orders to the military themselves.

So is it your contention Kim that the Executive Branch has the right to continue our involvement in Iraq against the will of a majority of the American people and Congress in perpetuity? If it takes another two decades to complete nation building in Iraq do you think Presidents can do that without any authorization from Congress at all?

Of course, that's not what our founding fathers intended. They gave Congress the right to declare war because they wanted to make it difficult, not easy, for the nation to go to war. Given that the current mission doesn't resemble the original mission at all why shouldn't the President make his case to the American people and to Congress for a new authorization to continue our nation building initiative in the midst of Iraq's civil war? Why is Bush afraid to have such a debate? Why is he afraid to make his case on Iraq? Is this truly a representative democracy or a one-man dictatorship? At what point do we recognize that the American people should have the right to enforce our will over a government that is not respecting our wishes?

lincoln improsined political opponents during war time, its not too far a stretch to say he would atleast agree with that quote. note the Grant quote is not in question.

Would one of you "cut and run" folks please address what happens to Iraq when we retreat? It seems that our new CIC Murtha and has friends haven't the intestinal fortitude to venture a guess.

I wonder if the Dems would like a re-do on their 1998 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ policy, which helped lead to Saddam's overthrow.

"Neither the House nor the Senate has any business micromanaging this war." BS, the government is by the people and for the people. As Lincoln said (these are actual quotes, and not made-up ones)

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

Bush should have learned this one:

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

if we "cut and run", the al-sadr(Iran backed) shia militias will try to committ massive Genocide against the Sunni's which would in effect wipe out the Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq except it would never happen because it would draw Saudi Arabia in to protect the Sunni's and start a widespread war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Which would be horrible on many fronts.

also, the last thing we need is that scenario to happen because then the Saudi's would be openly allied with Al-Qaeda.

Lincoln didn't have "public sentiment" on his side, he was one of the most popular presidents while in office ever, which led to his assassination.

Yeeeee-haaaa! This Kim broad is purty amart too! Is she as hot as Lorie? Does she have any pitchers made so as we can see her? These dmoncrats are traitors. They're trying to sell us out to the evil doers just like they did in Vietnam. Remember how we pulled out of there early, and then the Viet Cong were all storming the beaches of New Jersey and killing moms and eating all our apple pie! And then Jimmy Carter and Ho Chi Minh were eating american babies. we can't let that happen again. And yeah maybe we didn't find any WMD's. that don't mean they never had them. Just like because Lincoln never said that quote doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it if that actor hadn't shot him after the War of Northern Aggression!

edit above, one of the most UN-POPULAR presidents ever while in office.

While I disagree with this action, I do believe the democrats are actually doing the right thing here, if they actually do it, as opposed to all the time they've already wasted on the non-binding, pro-terrorist resolution they recently passed in the house.

And I'm not worried if they actually do it, anyway. The President will just veto it and there aren't enough terrorist supporting leftists in the congress to overturn a veto.

If we leave Iraq the Saudi's have promised to fund AQ and other groups to protect the Sunni.

The fanatics in Iran will exert the most influence as the strongest regional power. The Kurds split off part of Turkey and form into an army.

Iraq becomes a terrorist nation-state no matter who wins, placing the terrorists in control of the second largest oil reserves in the world. Oil prices soar, the US economy goes into decline.

The region becomes unstable, Afghanistan is also abandoned, caught in the crossfire between extremists.

Iran, flush with victory, never again responds to the IAEA or the UN and the bomb is developed for certain, with nothing now to stop it.

"They were for the war, before they were against it"(tm)

Policy merits aside, there'd be nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress can give authority to war, and can revoke the same. It's also clearly within their power to determine the scope of the war.

How dare you robert the original? Talking about reality and the actual real consequences of what the democrats want to do!

Didn't you hear what Pelosi said about doing that?
"Pelosi said. 'It has no place in our debate.'"

They only want to discuss their intentions (world peace I guess) not the actualy consquences of their actions, for crying out loud!

its not unconstitutional, its just dumb and suicidal. and confirms al-qaeda's view that we are weak.

"Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."
-Osama bin Laden, Declaration of War, (Fatwa) August, 1996

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate.

Ah, the modern GOP. Truly a paradigm of integity-ishness.

Would one of you "cut and run" folks please address what happens to Iraq when we retreat?

Troops would be maintained in the area to prevent the sky from falling. Well, any more than it has.

its not unconstitutional, its just dumb and suicidal. and confirms al-qaeda's view that we are weak.

I'd prefer our foreign policy not be run by al-Qaeda.

The Constitution grants congress the power to declare war. Period. Nothing about waging, managing or conducting war, and absolutely nothing about undeclared war or other armed hostilities. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military forces, not limited to "in time of war". Since there is no declared war, congress' power to declare war has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Whether the War Powers Act, or any other congressional enactment, is itself constitutional as applied to limit the authority of the commander in chief in time of armed hostilities, undertaken with the approval, whether actually necessary or not, of congress, is an interesting and very open question. Given that the President is constitutionally the commander-in-chief, and the congress is constitutionally given no role in the conduct of military operations, declared or otherwise, it would seem pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for congress to be able to legislate HOW military operations would be conducted. In fact, nothing in the Constitution can be reasonbly construed to bring about that conclusion.

"I'd prefer our foreign policy not be run by al-Qaeda."

Then why do you support the party who's doing what Al Qaeda wants?

Why was it again that Bin Ladin endorsed Kerry for President back in '04?

They would be unconstitutionally usurping the president's role as Commander in Chief by giving orders to the military themselves.
Kim Priestap

How so? They would be saying that the authority that Congress gave the president to invade has been revoked because the stated objectives of the mission have been fulfilled, i.e. dismantle WMDs and depose Saddam (we've also set up a gov't, not necessarily a functioning one though). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the authorization says we must leave Iraq as a stable, functioning, vibrant democracy, which is what the current goal is. Congress would not be telling the troops where to be stationed or what checkpoints to monitor or what neighborhood to sweep. Of course, if this did pass, Bush could either ask for a new authorization to keep troops their to police a civil war or not listen to it and keep the troops there indefinitely, at which point Congress would start impeachment proceedings.

Now, I don't agree with this approach, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

Hey jp, cut it out. You must be taking those guys out of context.
wavemaker

I seems as though you're saying this sarcastically, but you don't following up with the /sarc tag, so I'm not 100% sure. But he is taking they're quotes out of context. They (well Lincoln's isn't even a real quote, but if it were) were talking about America's civil war, not another country's civil war that we're in the middle of. If that's not out of context, I don't know what is.

Of course we should all take the words of a lefty. Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true. Democrats hate the military so much they are coming unhinged.
WildWillie

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate. Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it. So why anyone would object to us using it to discredit congressmen?
nell

lincoln improsined political opponents during war time, its not too far a stretch to say he would atleast agree with that quote.
jp

So now fake but accurate is OK with the right, at least when it comes to advocating for the execution of your countrymen? Good to know we've cleared that up.

"It's going to be tough," Ryan said. "Within three months we'll know whether momentum is headed in the right direction; and we'll know within six months whether the results will begin to materialize or not.

"In my mind, if by the end of the summer, it's clear that this isn't working, we're going to have to go to Plan B and start withdrawing troops." Rep Ryan R-WI

Time-table? Pull out! Why do the Republicans hate the troops and appease the terrorists?

Stupid. Useless. Posturing.

The Dhimmicrats don't have the votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster. They probably don't have the votes to pass it. And they certainly can't overcome a veto.

If they were serious, House Dhimmicrats would pull the funding.

I thought all of us big and brave 'mericans didn't give a pile of Texas brush what al-qaeda thinks, right? If I had to guess what they think about us I'd have to say foolish. And maybe a little grateful for providing them with lots of recruitment motivation and a situation the=at allows them to just pick away at us, refining their tactics.

And Heralder, the troops have been under equipped from the get-go. I blame everyone responsible, not just the bumbling fools in charge. This mission was lost from the start. It was not and never has been about winning. Our misguided attempt at liberation created a larger mess, with no good options to clean it up. The House of Bush has failed in its attempt at geo-petro-political realignment in the Middle East. Time to find someone who might be a little more competent as leader of the free world.

groucho,

I really don't want to battle opinions with you...it's like trying to kill someone with one of those Nerf swords. Pointless.

Suffice to say that you and I disagree.

"But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain..."

Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863, The Gettysburg Address.

Withdrawing now, regardless of your political affiliation, is a slap in the face of the brave men and women who have given their lives in this conflict. The job needs to be finished.

OK, but just so you know, I formed my "opinion" after listening to a soldier, an acquintance, who was in Iraq in '04 and '05 talk about scavenging any metal they could get their hands on to reinforce their under-armored vehicles. You know, the ones they were sent into BATTLE with. Don't conflate the poor logistical planning that has been the hallmark of this war with the blatant falsehood that Congress wants to pull any support from troops already there.

Finally, an accurate quote from Lincoln.

groucho:

No, it's Bush that needs to be stopped, and personally I'm all for whatever it takes.

That's the problem. The Democrats are actively engaged in a personal war against the President purely for political gain. And, like you, don't care what the cost may be.

jpe:

I'd prefer our foreign policy not be run by al-Qaeda.

At least we agree on this much. Now, consider that al-Qaida wants the U.S. out of Iraq....

Congress can't reauthorize the it authorization. The Constitution provides ONE way for Congress to reign in a war, and that is to defund it. Explicitly. Not through backdoor add-ons to unrelated bills. Not in measures that draw down troop strength and equipment...those all fall under the wars management and are decided by the CIC.

I think it's rich that the trolls here are proposing to fix the "errors" of deploying underquiped and overextended troops...by underequipping and overextending them further until we withdraw in disgrace. Hypocritic bastards all.

groucho, while we're all inmressed by your "friend," here is someone with an actual name willing to go on record:

"Feedback from Capt. Aaron Kaufman of the Dagger Brigade at FOB Justice:

This is simply another Red Herring. All of the trucks that leave the FOBs either possess interim FRAG-5 armor kits or the Objective Kits. I have not seen a truck equivalent to what we used over 2 years ago in OIF II on the roads in Baghdad (add on armor kits). Every truck we have is baseline an M1114 or M1151 up-armored HMMWV, not a modified M998 or M1025 (standard HMMWV, no armor). The same type of reporter writes these articles, one you can refer as a Green Zone Sniper. I have personally been impressed with how quickly the Army gets newly developed equipment and technology to the soldiers in the fight. The EFP threat didn't explode until last year, although we saw their initial use over two years ago.
In any case, the interim or objective armor is only designed to stop the spalling effect (inner debris converted to shrapnel), as there is no reasonable amount of armor that can stop the copper slug. EFPs are equivalent to firing an anti-tank gun at the side of a HMMWV. What will help address the EFP threat? The increase in forces in Baghdad. The FOB mentality, combined with a lack of a persistent presence in sector of US forces, is a greater threat to soldier safety than a lack of passive force protection materials (armor, concrete barriers). That stated, however, there is no shortage of passive FP materials."

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006893.htm

Yes, good quote Jorma.

groucho,

I made a general statement, I'm not sure why you chose to reinforce the under-armored point of all of them.

While it makes perfect sense to add (some) armor to the humvee given it's combat role in this conflict; when have we been dealing with IEDs in such a large and frequent scope before this war?

Planning is excellent, but no one has a crystal ball. I have a problem with the slow reaction time in solving these problems, not that they occured at all. Of course with a government divided on the war itself, it's can be difficult to implement any decisive actions.

I wish I could say that poor failed plans, unforseen circustances and outright mistakes (all of which can be called poor logistical planning)were just a "hallmark" of this war, but they are not. They are a hallmark of every war.

As far as withdrawing support for the troops...it seems to go hand and hand with neutering the military.

Mike, lol. Excellent.

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I expecting any political gain. I, like the majority of Americans, say enough blood and money has been wasted on this poorly planned and executed war. There is nothing personal about my feelings whatsoever. To dissent is the most American of activities and I'm merely exercising my right to do so. The cost is already beyond what anyone could , or should, have imagined. It's too much.

At least we agree on this much. Now, consider that al-Qaida wants the U.S. out of Iraq....

Doesn't matter what al-Qaeda wants; we should only do what is correct. That's what not bowing to al-Qaeda on our foreign policy means.

The Constitution provides ONE way for Congress to reign in a war, and that is to defund it.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't say that, genius. It's common sense, though, that if a branch is given a power to authorize, the power to revoke is implied.

"To dissent is the most American of activities and I'm merely exercising my right to do so."

This is horribly assinine. INFORMED and REASONED dissent is patriotic. Knee-jerk anti-Bush rhetoric is not.

Maybe these antics will be enough to get Joe Lieberman to really switch parties. It's hard to see how any honorable man or woman could think that the repeal of the Iraq resolution would do anything but strengthen our enemies and hurt troop morale.

jpe:

Doesn't matter what al-Qaeda wants; we should only do what is correct. That's what not bowing to al-Qaeda on our foreign policy means.

It does matter what al Qaeda wants. Why? Because what they view as good for them, is going to be bad for us.

Example: Flying planes into scyscapers killing thousands.

-al Qaeda says: "Good!"

What do you say jpe?

All the same brainy, it is his right to hold an opinion, regardless of it's merit or political alignment.

In other words, dissent is OK, as long sa it doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers. Kind of like free speech being OK as long as it isn't done in public.

No matter the differences we have, I agree you have the right to believe whatever you want, and have fought to make sure you keep that right. That said, you DO NOT get to say that I must believe your more odious opinions are patriotic just because they are contrary to the official policy of the country. It's damned ridiculous.

Yes, Groucho, that does seem to perfectly sum up the position of the political left.

groucho: "In other words, dissent is OK, as long sa it doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers."

No, not at all. Ruffle all the feathers you want. Get out and march. Scream at the top of your lungs. Be a talking head on the opinion shows. Run commercials. Whatever. BUT keep it honest and in the realm of reality. Trying to de-legitimize the war with demonstrably false and misleading statements ("under equipped troops", "warn out and beated troops", "war for oil", "Haliburtion {insert disingenuous offence}", "No WMD", "Bush lied, people died", "If I knew then what I know now...", etc.) does aid the enemy.

jpe:

Actually, the Constitution doesn't say that, genius. It's common sense, though, that if a branch is given a power to authorize, the power to revoke is implied.

I may not be a Constitutional scholar of your prowess because I couldn't find whether the power to declare war was specified as either revocable or irrevocable. However, your claim that it's "common sense" (that the power is revocable) is little more than stating "it's that way because I want it to be".

If Congress has the power to revoke the authorization of the use of force, why did they instead choose to revoke funding to bring Viet Nam to an end ?

jp:

You should be banned for listing a fake quote, especially one that is well known to be a lie. At least apologize.

I'm ashamed to be your namesake.

jp--

How many times are you going to repeat that false quote mistakenly attributed to Lincoln? Politics is politics, but please don't put words in Lincoln's mouth.

"Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true."

Fine! Than attribute it to yourself. Leave Lincoln out of it.

"Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it."

Make your OWN argument; stop lying about Lincoln. What makes you so sure YOU know what he would have said, when you can't even figure out what he ACTUALLY said?

"To dissent is the most American of activities and I'm merely exercising my right to do so."

This is horribly assinine. INFORMED and REASONED dissent is patriotic. Knee-jerk anti-Bush rhetoric is not.

Wow! "Brainy" (sic) is nuts! He can't handle someone who has a different opinion than he does! Good luck on planet earth...if you ever get there...

"If Congress has the power to revoke the authorization of the use of force, why did they instead choose to revoke funding to bring Viet Nam to an end ?"

Indeed, they made a BIG mistake there...

Well, at least I have reading comprehension going for me. Which is more than I can say for you, asshat.

How dare I insist people use information and logic when debating issues. How fascist of me.

How dare I insist people use information and logic when debating issues.

Well, then get this piece of information: Lincoln NEVER said the words you attribute to him.

Go back and read the comments, retard. I never quoted Lincoln, or anyone else. And I don't subscribe to the "fake but accurate" crap, either.
If the quote is fake, whoever used it should admit it, apologize and find accurate information to make their point.

Back to the topic at hand (geez, folks, grow a sense of perspective!), I don't see anything stopping Congress from passing a bill declaring the revocation of the AUMF. The Constitution is pretty clear on what Congress cannot do, and reovking a prior declaration is not listed among those restrictions.
However, whether it could stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, along with the Presidents almost-certain use of his authority as Commander in Chief to continue, is questionable. It would place the responsibility for the resultant disaster in Iraq squarely on the shoulders of those voting for it, far more certainly than their evasion of their responsibilities for the initial authorization.
From a U.S. political standpoint, this would be a bad move for the Democratic Party. From an international standpoint, this would be an incredibly bad move from the U.S. Congress.
But it is certainly a possible action they could take.

"Ask not what Al Quaeda can do to Your country? no, rather ask what You can do for Al Quaeda?"

"Aymen al Zawihiri 11/6/07"

John, my understanding is that Congress is limited to authorizing and funding war, and that's it. It was set up this way for exactly this reason. The framers didn't want 200+ people directing a war.

There are no good choices as this point. Stay stuck in the middle of a sectarian struggle largely of our own making or redeploy strategically, get our folks out of the crossfire and see what develops. We cannot "win" under the present strategy. It's a failure. Every move is potentially a bad one.

And Brainy, your Mom's calling you. It's supper time.

"And Brainy, your Mom's calling you. It's supper time."
Posted by: groucho

I'm just dumbfounded anyone would actually use an argument this innane in a public forum. Congrats, though, I suppose: Just when I think you can't embarass yourself further, you make a believer out of me all over again.

Publicus:

"If Congress has the power to revoke the authorization of the use of force, why did they instead choose to revoke funding to bring Viet Nam to an end ?"
Indeed, they made a BIG mistake there...

Or the more simple explanation was that they did not believe that it was a power which they had... because revocation of the authorization, if it was a power available to them, would have been a more simple, more direct, less controversial course of action. I contend that it's more likely that Congress did not believe that they had the power to revoke the authorization.

I don't agree with the commenters that have argued that since they weren't denied the power that they were granted it. Congress has other tools available to it if there's a serious problem with the way the Commander-in-Chief is conducting the war (defund, impeach, etc), but saying 'black, black, we take it back' isn't one.

In his early career the great Bill Cosby gave a monologue where his upset mother shouted.."I brought you into this world...and I can take you out of it"

Authorization was given based on..at best case scenario bad intelligence...worse case, a lie.
Remember, in May 2003 the mission authorized by Congress was "accomplished"
Our mission, whatever it is now, is not what was given our President. It is not what was given our nation.

I am not cynical enough nor shallow enough to want this deadly occupation to continue long enough to ensure a Sweep by the Democratic Party in 2008.

The Brits' are doing a "cut and run" if their area is ok..why don't they just go north and help us out in Baghdad?

Some folks here take me way back to my High School days and Homecoming my senior year..
We were down 39-0 with 3 minutes left and the head cheerleader shouted out "C'mon the game's not over yet."

Authorization was given based on..at best case scenario bad intelligence...worse case, a lie.

Credit given for the extension of fairness here, nogo.

However, I'll point out that America, as a liberal republic, has made it a point of rebuilding nations after defeating hostile regimes, and while difficult, this has proven to be both healthy and wise for us and the world.

nogo, that would be a more apt anology with a small re-write. If you likened us to the winning team and had our cheerleader making the same proclomation to the opposing team, that'd just about cover your position.

So by your reckoning, we should have left Japan and Germany before the smoke cleared? THAT would have worked out well.

NOGO:

Authorization was given based on..at best case scenario bad intelligence...worse case, a lie.
Remember, in May 2003 the mission authorized by Congress was "accomplished"
Our mission, whatever it is now, is not what was given our President. It is not what was given our nation.

Your so full of sh*t your eyes are brown. Better go back and read that document.

jp hit bottom and disastrously wrote:
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
~~ President Abraham Lincoln

WildWillie handed him a shovel and wrote:
Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true. Democrats hate the military so much they are coming unhinged.

nell told him to start digging and wrote:
The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate. Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it. So why anyone would object to us using it to discredit congressmen?

jp inexplicably started digging faster and wrote:
lincoln improsined political opponents during war time, its not too far a stretch to say he would atleast agree with that quote.

Now... would you people like to know what Lincoln actually said? And, mind you, this was while he was a Congressman in the House, criticizing President Polk:

When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so.

I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client's neck, in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the case, which he dared not admit, and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it appear so; but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it still does appear to me, that just such, and from just such necessity, is the President's struggle in this case.

That originally having some strong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning--to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.

All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond it's power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease.

And just to toss this out...

A month before the end of the war, Polk was criticized in a United States House of Representatives amendment to a bill praising Major General Zachary Taylor for "a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." This criticism, in which Congressman Abraham Lincoln played an important role, followed congressional scrutiny of the war's beginnings, including factual challenges to claims made by President Polk[4] [5].

Now... jp, WildWillie, nell, and jp again... please show us where the fuck you cowards get off making up completely bogus lying shit and using it to gutlessly slander Abraham Lincoln?!

Not only did you use a bogus quote, but rather than apologize you invent the asinine idea that Lincoln would have agreed with the bogus quote, when the fact is that Lincoln expressed exactly the opposite. Lincoln would be spinning in his tomb to hear the spittle-laden screeches that you are now employing to make your sad, hollow arguments. What's next? Claims that George Washington advocated wiretaps?

You are embarrassments to all Americans.

Heralder:
Overextended and undersupplied? Not unless Congress has it's way.

P. Bunyan:
false and misleading statements ("under equipped troops",

*sigh*

The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs

...

U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials. The Army has ramped up production of the armor, giving priority to troops in Baghdad, but the upgrade is not scheduled to be completed until this summer, Army officials said. That is well into the timeline for major operations launched last week to quell violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, which the U.S. military now views as the top security threat in Iraq.

Why do so many on the right feel the need to just lie and invent nonsense to justify their points? It really just makes you look quite desperate, and easily fooled.

Mmmmmmm.... Brian, if you are going to insist on treating everything the Washington Post says as gospel - even when it quotes an old report from Senator Levin, but tells it's readers the quotes come from the IG's report instead - then you may not want to throw around words like "easily fooled" when referring to others.

I assume from your selective quotes that you posted that you saw what you wanted in the first paragraph and didn't read to the end of the article that you quoted.

If you had, you would have found it that the article didn't say what you clearly - and so very, very desperately - wanted it to say.

Wonder if Lincoln is going to sue?

Brian, if you are going to insist on treating everything the Washington Post says as gospel

Why not? You seem to when it suits your purpose.

But if you want to challenge the comments of Army Brig. Gen. Charles Anderson and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as unreliable, go right ahead.

If you had, you would have found it that the article didn't say what you clearly - and so very, very desperately - wanted it to say.

Please enlighten us as to the good news and rosy picture that I so desperately avoided.

Brian, Brian, Brian .....

You just make things up when it suits you, don' t you?

Why not? You seem to when it suits your purpose.

I have no idea who you have me confused with, but this is a blatant lie.

But if you want to challenge the comments of Army Brig. Gen. Charles Anderson and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as unreliable, go right ahead.

Another blatant lie.

Please state where I called either of those men "unreliable".

Please enlighten us as to the good news and rosy picture that I so desperately avoided.

Another blatant lie.

Please state where I accused you of avoiding "the good news and rosy picture".

What you did was misrepresent what was being sent ... and then attacked the right for "inventing nonsense". I simply pointed out that you were violating your own standard - which makes you a hypocrite.

The fact that you simply invented comments - and said that they were from me - in your response simple proves me right.

Read the article again ... but all the way through this time.

Brian -

Of the 4,000 Humvee's that need Frag Kit 5, how many allready have Frag Kit 4?

You understand the upgrade process right?

Or are you using this as an example of the under equipped argument. Our 80,000 HMV's have better protection then the M3 Shermans that had to face the Germans in Europe. The Germans, Soviets, and the British had better tanks then we did.

How did we win with the army we "went to war with" in 1941?

Kim asserts, "Neither the House nor the Senate has any business micromanaging this war."

Uh, Kim, they couldn't do nearly as bad as the Chimp-in-Chief you're responsible for, to your everlasting shame.

CONSERVATIVES, for once one of your politicians spoke the truth, but alas, it was years ago:

"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." -- Dick Cheney, 1991

CONSERVATIVES,

HEAR FOR YOURSELVES DICK CHENEY'S DEFINITION OF A QUAGMIRE.

and then ask yourselves a single question:

Was Dick Cheney speaking the truth,

or

was he lying?

Your call, conservatives.

Brian has a very hard time reading. I did not say "Lincoln would have said it anyway." You have so much hatred for GW and the military, you jump to conclusions that are based on shifting sands.

I joined the Navy in 1970, volunteered when everybody around me was being drafted. I am a lot of things, but not a chickenhawk. Maybe some self projection? ww

Herman, it is futile to debate someone like Cheney even when his own words debunk him . In short,9/11,(for which the president says there was no connection with Saddam) justifies a trillion dollar quagmire of the US's own making in Iraq. Bush and Cheney. Imagine these two clowns are in charge of US foreign policy. God help us and the planet for which Cheney said yesterday that there is no global consensus that man is causing global warming. I wish Cheney would get his priorities right for once. How much money does he need to make?

About time someone does.

"justifies a trillion dollar quagmire of the US's own making in Iraq."

Just how many lies can you fit in one sentence?

"Imagine these two clowns are in charge of US foreign policy"

What more proof do ya need these idiots live in a fantasyland ?

You tratorous scum must imagine them as clowns just to make you feel good. You losers would piss your pants if stood in front Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obvious your spineless leader prick willie didn't agree with Cheney or just didn't care when he wrote The Iraqi Liberation Act did he?

What a bunch of cry babies , supporters of the criminal democrat party of perpetual fraud calling the President of the United States , "Chimp-in-Chief".

Not one your masters are qualified or even worthy of filling their shoes. Yet you will do your best to cry and lie for any lowlife like you did for Fraud Kerry.

Brian wrote:

"Why do so many on the right feel the need to just lie and invent nonsense to justify their points?"

Just sounds funny coming from someone who votes along side 85% of felons in this Country. Then again what else should be expected from the party of criminal frauds?

Certainly not credibility , integrity or honesty. Democrat Media fills in the void in that department , actually I should say "used to" fill in that void.

Since we are mining the archives for old - very old - speeches, why not post this one as well:

http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

What you did was misrepresent what was being sent ... and then attacked the right for "inventing nonsense".

I invited you to explain what was misrepresented. Since you avoided that opportunity, I'll assume there's nothing more to your assertion than your own invention.

And the "nonsense" I referred to was direct quotes from commenters that contradicted the military's top brass. You may know such things better as "truthiness".

I invited you to explain what was misrepresented.

Another lie, I see.

Your EXACT quote from earlier ...

But if you want to challenge the comments of Army Brig. Gen. Charles Anderson and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as unreliable, go right ahead.

I returned the challenge and asked you to identify where I had claimed that either was unreliable. You AVOIDED responding to that challenge so I will assume that you knew it was a lie when you said it.

I issued a second challenge to you to back your second claim

Please enlighten us as to the good news and rosy picture that I so desperately avoided.

.....and point out where I said that in my earlier post and you avoided responding to that as well. Again, I will take that as an admission that you knew that one to be untrue as well when you said it.

Now, since you have changed your question from earlier ... I will point out a third and fourth question (although not mine) that you avoided answering and that is part of what you misrepresented about the article you quoted:

from Screejay ..

Of the 4,000 Humvee's that need Frag Kit 5, how many allready have Frag Kit 4?

You understand the upgrade process right?

And finally ....

You may know such things better as "truthiness".

Nothing sadder than someone who "thinks they all look alike" and, as a result, openly display their bias when they confuse who are they are talking to at a given moment.

I have no idea what that quote means.

Does that mean that you are saying that your article was "fake but accurate" by chance?

Brian

How many troops have died because their vehicles were top heavy?

through November 2005, 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq -- or 70 percent -- were killed when the vehicle rolled. Of 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.

You scream that the troops need armor, but give it a pass when that armor is the reason HMV's roll and kill the turrent gunner.

You understand the upgrade process right?

Still failing to explain what you claimed was misrepresented. And now trying to change the subject. Pathetic. But fortunately, transparent.

Brian has a very hard time reading. I did not say "Lincoln would have said it anyway."

You said:

Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true.

So is it true or not? Do you claim that Abraham Lincoln was a "saboteur and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged"? Please defend your statement. We could all use the entertainment.

Hmmmm, Brian ...

I said:

Now, since you have changed your question from earlier ... I will point out a third and fourth question (although not mine) that you avoided answering and that is part of what you misrepresented about the article you quoted:

From Screejay

Of the 4,000 Humvee's that need Frag Kit 5, how many allready have Frag Kit 4? You understand the upgrade process right?

Then you respond with:

Still failing to explain what you claimed was misrepresented. And now trying to change the subject. Pathetic. But fortunately, transparent.

I think it is pretty clear to all us that you don't understand the process of upgrade given that you have now three times avoided the question asking if you do.

One point - for the rest of the readers - is that the "5" designation refers to a TOTAL VEHICLE upgrade by the military. It does *NOT* refer to any upgrades to the vehicle. Different individual portions of the vehicle have been upgraded by the military a number of times in between the addition of the "4" version and the "5" version. The *same* individual portions of the vehicle may have been upgraded by the military several times between the change between "4" and "5".

Also, your article referred to a pre-fab manufactured kit being added - again not indicating that *NO* upgrade occurred since "4".

If someone wants the lights upgraded and so the factory pulls out a box and puts the two lights in it and ships it off, then *an* upgrade occurs just the same as manufacturing a the product with the new lights already attached is an upgrade.

In addition to the very real issues of vehicle weight that Screejay has raised - and you have simply avoided responding to - is the issue of the extra upgrades creating and containing additional shrapnel.

From the article you quoted:

The penetrator, a heavy, metal projectile, is propelled by an explosive and strikes with enough speed and power to shatter the relatively brittle, "high hard" steel of up-armored Humvees, creating what experts call "behind armor debris (BAD)" -- essentially, turning pieces of the vehicle into shrapnel. The new armor kit is designed with more flexible materials that slow down the projectile and contain the debris, limiting the damage to that caused directly by the EFP.

Then, there's this quote from your article:

However, there is no guarantee that even the latest armor -- which reinforces the doors -- can prevent deaths from EFPs, defense officials have emphasized, and U.S. troops in Humvees outfitted with the new kit have been killed by EFPs.

The Pentagon does not release overall data on EFP strikes or their effectiveness, to prevent such information from being exploited by attackers. But reports from the military and family members on specific attacks indicate that since November, at least 11 U.S. soldiers and an interpreter have died in EFP strikes, all but one of them in Baghdad.

And this one:

EFP attacks are a small percentage of the roughly 1,200 attacks against U.S. forces each month involving roadside bombs, according to the Pentagon's Joint IED Defeat Organization. About half the roadside bombs in Iraq are found and disabled, and only 20 percent cause U.S. casualties. But EFPs "are far more lethal," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said recently, adding, "They can take out an Abrams tank."

So, the new upgrade is to defend against a specific type of IED - not all IED's - and those more deadly IED's are contained largely in Baghdad and are believed to be as a result of Iranian influence in the area.

Can we assume Brian that you would support efforts to root out and eliminate these super deadly IED's BEFORE they are planted?

Prevention beforehand is always more effective than efforts at protection after the fact.