MAJORITY "STRONGLY OBJECTS" TO BUSH TROOP BUIDUP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600313.html

So here we go again tossing the old coward bromide around again. But god forbid if a dissenter uses chicken-hawk to describe you folks. Your hypocrisy is astounding. Yes Jay I know you're describing the Congress....so what. Apparently the Senate is reflecting the will of the people. God forbid they don't just stand at attention and rubber stamp the Bush Cabal.

Go big or go home.

This is one of those situations where compromise is a sure lose-lose. But that's what the Democrats will settle for. If they pull the plug now on the Iraq War it will be too soon. If it ends quietly, the Iraq War will become a less significant issue for the coming election. If there are negative consequences to a withdrawal it will backfire on Democrats who don't want to take responsibility.

The plan, with the media's help, is to make the public believe this is still only Bush & the Republican's war. Democrats want a slow lingering death for the Iraq War and will do what's necessary to ensure that. That includes micromanaging the war and denying Petraeus the tools he needs to turn things around.

Hugh, aren't the Democrat being their own kind of Chickenhawks now? Trying to keep the war alive in a non-productive state instead of pulling the plug because they can't weather the political fallout.

I am so glad that Hugh posts so many comments here. He so frequently misses the point, I would worry if he was in a position where his aim and/or perception would matter.

Congress APPROVED the "surge" plan almost exactly a month ago, then furiously began undercutting it. Doesn't he see the insane inconsistency there, or does that simply not penetrate his little fantasy world? And doesn't that rank hypocrisy offend him, or is he willing to give it a bye because it suits his political agenda?

Hugh would fit in just fine with the current Congressional leadership -- and no, Hugh, that is NOT a compliment.

J.

Jay:

Leave it to you to convolute and twist the truth to fit your illogical argument(s). The Congress approved an appointment. That's what they do with rare exception.

Now, if they do nothing more other than an empty resolution I would completely agree with you about their worthlessness. Pretty simple to understand. Even for you Jay.

But you and the others on the extreme right (yes Jay you are way out there about 90% of the time despite your abject denials) brook no dissent in this country. You and others toss around words like coward and traitor in a simplistic attempt to be right. It's your rank hypocrisy Jay, not mine.

And again when challenged by the facts you ignore them. Just as the Bush Cabal does on a regular basis. Jay, in case you haven't gotten it yet, THE COUNTRY supports the democrats and the senate on this one.

Hugh said:

But you and the others on the extreme right (yes Jay you are way out there about 90% of the time despite your abject denials) brook no dissent in this country.

Hmmm ... how could this comment be proved wrong?

Oh, yeah ...

Jay allowed your comment to be posted. If he 'brooked no dissent' as you claim, then you wouldn't have been allowed to post something that dissented with what he said.

You are making a very basic mistake, Hugh. Jay DISAGREED with you - he didn't SILENCE you. He has the same right to state an opinion that you do. He even has a right to "dissent" from your opinion.

It appears to be you, not him, that has a problem with "dissent".

To the subject ....

As I have previously stated here, I have little faith in polls. People fund them and they are often constructed in such a way to gather the preconceived response the funder wants.

I don't want my Senators to sway in the wind in response the latest poll and base their respons on who funded it.

I want my Senators to LEAD.

Once upon the time Sherrod Brown was a that type of leader. Then he sold his soul for a Congressional seat. Hopefully, he will find his spine again.

George Voinivich may anger conservatives on issues - I sometimes shake my head at his actions myself. However, I do believe that he bases his decisions on his own sense of right and wrong - and not on what the latest poll tells him. In other words - he leads by example and takes the consequences.

Hugh,

The WP poll you cite has several problems. The most important of which is a huge oversampling of black voters that has been admitted.

We don't know yet the extent of the OTHER oversamoling of Democrats, normal for the Post.

Almost a hundred EXTRA black voters were in the population of about one thousand polled. Who knows what else they did, but this is enough to throw this poll out.

If you read Gen. Petraeus official counterinsurgency manual you see that the plan Bush has adopted is 4 years to late and 125,000 men short.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

I'll tell you who the cowards are. The far right submissives that are willing to let young men die in a futile hope that their obsolete conservative ideology is not really DEAD and that their president is not a hapless fool.

Ohio Voter:

As to polls and the senate. The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

You may wax philosophical all you want about leadership. I happen to believe leadership in this instance happens to coincide with the will of the people.

As I said in the previous post it better be more than an empty resolution. If not, they are worthless and should be booted out in 2008 and 2010.

Hugh, with all due respect, you're being a moron.

Hugh:

And again when challenged by the facts you ignore them.

You've posted nothing in this thread other than your own opinion. The only thing the might construed as fact is a data on other peoples opinion.

The fact is that when Petraeus stood before the Senate, the Senate knew who he was and what his plan was. If they had a problem with either of the two, THEN was the opportunity to express it and to challenge it (note: that's what JayTea's labeled as the first opportunity). If there were doubts or objections, during the confirmation was the appropriate time to express those and have that debate.

Hugh:

I happen to believe leadership in this instance happens to coincide with the will of the people.

So, you honestly believe true leadership is doing what's popular ? Is that advice that you've given your children ?

Hugh, stop showing off your ignorance about the way our government works.

If you're going to project forward, you should have included 2012 instead of 2010 -- because that's the next time any senators elected last year will be up for re-election. Representatives elected last year, and the next president, will be chosen in 2008. The 2010 elections will be no one's "day of reckoning" over current issues, except for senators elected in 2004.

J.

"16 June 2006 (Final Draft)"

We're 4 years too late to implement a policy whose final draft was issued less than half a year ago?

Sorry, that should have said "less than a year ago?"

As to polls and the senate. The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

I am constantly amazed at the presumed 'madate' some Democrats think the 2006 election gave them.

If the comment was laughable in 2004 when Bush said it - and I did laugh at his arrogance in saying it then - then most assuredly it is also laughable in 2006 when the Senate is a virtual tie.

The message being sent was - as likely - that the American people don't trust the Congress to do the right thing. By keeping the Senate close, they could limit the damage Congress could do.

Nice gratutious insult, BTW. You weren't trying to 'crush dissent', were you? LOL!

Funny, Hugh, in the biggest race where the war was biggest issue (some would say the only issue), Lieberman stomped the crap out of the Nutroots candidate and the Democratic party machine.

Or is that "the exception that proves the rule?"

J.

Now you all have me laughing. This must be the only place on earth that (1) never believes a poll unless it supports your point of view and (2) denies what every other clear thinking person in the freaking entire universe knows - THE COUNTRY does not support the surge. THE COUNTRY wants us out the Bush Disaster in Iraq.

What the freak has one vote in one state got to do with anything Jay? Talk about grasping at straws...holy cow man, you're becoming delusional now.

Ohio - I'm sorry I was wrong. You do have your head in the sand.

Jay Tea, you know where all this comes from, don't you? The die-hard leftists lost it completely when Gore lost in 2000, and most of them decided then and there that any decision made by Bush would be illegitimate and wrong no matter what. Unfortunately, many of them were Democratic politicians and media types, and they've declared anyone and everyone who isn't on board with the "Bushisalwayswrong" mentality to be "the extreme right" as Hugh did. If Bush were to declare "it gets dark at night," we'd never hear from Hugh again because he'd have wrapped his car around a tree driving at 11pm with his headlights off.

So now we're stuck waiting for these folks to either grow the fark up, or self-destruct from the internal contradictions they put themselves through regularly. I don't think it's going to be an easy wait.

OK, let's see -

= Condescending attitude - check.

= False statement - check.

= Unsupported assertion - check.

= Dismissal of relevant counter-example - check.

= Argument ad hominem - double check.

OK, Hugh, you can invoice for your work now.

Hugh does not know the difference between a democracy and a republic. When you are motivated by hate only, this is what you get. ww

Boy, if this piece has Hugh so bent out of shape, his head's going to positively explode when the companion piece goes up at 11:00.

Consider this fair warning, Hugh: you may want to wrap your head in duct tape around 10:55 or so.

And be sure to leave at least one airhole.

J.

Hugh:

"Now, if they do nothing more other than an empty resolution I would completely agree with you about their worthlessness. Pretty simple to understand. Even for you Jay."

Earth to Hugh, they did come up with something more than an empty resolution. But in true spineless fashion, and when it's demonstrated they are only posturing for political points and NOT for anything substantial, they turn tail and run.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

"Swift action?" The only thing swift is how fast they yanked their collective fingers out of the political winds, realized they overplayed their hand and are in full retreat

Hugh:

What the freak has one vote in one state got to do with anything Jay? Talk about grasping at straws...holy cow man, you're becoming delusional now.

If you believe your point is valid, you could at least attempt to provide some rational explanation as to the reason behind Lieberman's victory if the election results could be interpreted as a mandate. Was it a mandate except in Conn ?

Of course, you could ignore the facts presented just recite your opinion, claiming it as fact, and fling personal attacks...

Be nice, _Mike_. If Hugh did that, he'd have nothing left to say...

J.

Jay:

You've devolved into a scapiron, jhow commentor now. You sound just like them now. You have not responded to any of THE FACTS Jay. God forbid you deal with THE FACTS Jay. Just use the rightie bromides like traitor and coward. Sad Jay. Too much cold weather and snow?

marc......it's far from over in the congress. Again and again and agian....if they do nothing more than they have done kick their asses down the street.

wildlife....that's an old rightie canard when you have nothing to talk about. We "hate" or we're "cowards" or we're "traitors." Talk about something, offer something or just shut up.

Parker...are you the debate scorer or do you have something actually intelligent to offer? Give me another "check" now.

Notice the utter and absolute silence about THE FACTS???

Notice the utter and absolute silence about THE FACTS???

Yes, Hugh, it has been long noticed you have nothing to do with actual facts. You started in this thread with an opinion poll, and have worked your way downwards from there.

Mike

So your logic is one vote in one state for one man means THE COUNTRY supports the current conduct the Iraq war? Maybe a rational explanation is that the folks in Connecticut thought Liberman was a better man? Maybe they supported him because he has served them well for many years? Logical enough for you?

Now maybe you can supply some logical argument to refute mine, i.e. that THE COUNTRY does not support the current conduct of the war in IRAQ. I notice that no rightie has attempted to do that other than dismissing the validity of "polls." No rightie has offered any explanation for the why the Congress changes in 2006. All the righties here do is keep debating scores and mock.

"THE FACTS?" Hugh, the only "fact" you've cited so far was a Washington Post "poll" that has already been discredited, as Robert pointed out. Everything else you've said are your interpretations and opinions -- which, I'm sorry to tell you, don't qualify as "facts" just because you say so.

You said the 2006 elections were overwhelmingly about the war. I pointed out that the single highest-profile race in that election featured the Nutroots anti-war crowd, with the full backing of the Democratic party, was trounced. So suddenly that becomes irrelevant.

You said that the 2008 and 2010 elections would be a day of reckoning for the war backers. I dismantled that one with Basic American Civics 101, and that 2008 and 2012 would be far more significant -- 2010 will be pretty much irrelevant on that point.

So, Hugh, where are these FACTS you keep touting? Every time I think we found one, it turns out we were mistaken... and you were wrong.

J.

Jay, you are confusing Hugh. Hugh, can you possibly believe you and the lefties don't hate GW? What are you smoking? ww

People who cite polls, using them as a basis of fact, are the worst. Polls are simply information tools. Instead they're overused and given far too much credence by those who are afraid, or unable, to stand by their convictions regardless of trends. "I'm against this war, and so are a bunch of other people. So there!" Too often, people use polls to form their opinions and polls DO sway public opinion. My God, they're a dime a dozen and there's something wrong with all of them. Over sampling, convoluted questions, leading questions, the funders and biased poll operators.

Polls show that more and more people began wearing bell bottoms again over the last five years. Does this mean I should go out and buy some? Hell no. That an era I'd just as soon forget. :-)

Hey! I may be on to something. There's a direct correlation between bell bottom wearers and anti-war advocates.

Hugh, Jay wasn't talking about you. He was talking about those in our government who voted strongly for a man AND the plan he laid out and then formulated a non-binding resolution against his plan as soon as he was out of sight. So yes, they're petty little tyrants and cowards. Rudy Guiliani called it "a comment". We don't elect our representatives to spend their time making comments. We elect them to make decisions. But they're afraid to because people might not like them. At least Murtha is actually trying to do something about it and his compatriots just let him twist in the wind while they wring their hands.

You're suggesting they should vote according to polls. That's mob rule. And it's especially bad when that mob is woefully uninformed.

Or does the left just support Petraeus like they support the troops? Like trophies on their mantles. As long as they don't do anything, all's well.

"No rightie has offered any explanation for the why the Congress changes in 2006."

Hugh, historically there is a big change in the makeup of Congress and the Senate in the middle of an eight year term presidency. It was talked about at length in the months preceding the last election.

Or are you really that new to politics?

Oyster, don't forget the "culture of corruption" talk and Representative Foley. Those got a lot of press, too.

Of course, when the "corruption" talk turns to Democrats (Reid, Jefferson, et al), they get painted as "no big deal" or "aberrations."

The only significant race I can recall that hinged on the war was the CT Senate race, and there the anti-war candidate lost. Can anyone cite counterexamples? (This means you, Hugh.)

J.

What's funny is that Jay Tea's article wasn't really all that partisan. He attacked the Senate as a whole and said the Senators were being craven and cowardly. He states that the Senate voted 81-0 in favor of Praetus and his plan. Remember that Gen. Praetus and his plan were approved *after* the 2006 elections when the Dems held Congress.

The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

Guess the Senetors didn't get the memo.

Using Huges own reasoning (that the Nov elections was a mandate and the new Senators represent the will of the people) then people want the surge. And now Huge says the people don't want the surge and want the troops to come home:

THE COUNTRY does not support the surge. THE COUNTRY wants us out the Bush Disaster in Iraq.

So why doesn't congress pull the troops home? Why the non-binding, say nothing but score political points, resolution? Why not cut funding like they did in '72? They control the Senate right? It's the will of the people right?

Hugh:

So your logic is one vote in one state for one man means THE COUNTRY supports the current conduct the Iraq war? Maybe a rational explanation is that the folks in Connecticut thought Liberman was a better man? Maybe they supported him because he has served them well for many years? Logical enough for you?

Hugh, you're making yourself look foolish. I suggested that you answer JayTea's counter point rather than engaging in personal attacks if you thought your point was valid.

Hugh:

Now maybe you can s