Well, at least they have consistent standards of behavior. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did the same thing during the Alito hearing when his supporters were given time to speak in his behalf. Teddy Kennedy walked out rather than listen to someone who had worked with his brother JFK say something fully supportive of Alito. And Democrats fled the state of Texas rather than engage in debate on an issue they didn't like and couldn't win. ALWAYS the cut-and-run party, no matter how big or small the stakes.

If they avoid televised debates, why not military briefings.

They are traitors who should be forced out of office, convicted and delivered their due justice.

That may be going a bit far.

When you live in an alternate universe you needn't be here all the times. The Kos mothership (or "wheel" if you're a Farakan devotee) often requires you to report in for new instructions.

Braying cowards.

"Even those who have declared the war lost still have a duty to do their jobs".

Duty, Honor, Country, Truth. All lost in the democrat party.

Well, the Democrats should take time out from their busy schedules to listen to the administration's latest rosy lies about Iraq.

Publicus, you are saying that Petraeus is a (rosy) liar?

This is just a way to claim that they were never briefed on the situation in Iraq.

or that they have no 'special knowledge' of what General Petraeus had to say.

Nobody in the MSM will ever bring up this version of 'cut and run'. But it will be 'reported' that the Dems were 'never briefed'.

Democrats have some sort of disease that never lets you fully mature past the age of around 10.

Well, the Democrats should take time out from their busy schedules to listen to the administration's latest rosy lies about Iraq.

It's a briefing, not a propaganda meet. The Democrats are busy trying to establish their own little parallel government by opting out of pretty much anything they don't politically like. That attitude should certainly free up their schedules.

I realize Pelosi may not have the spare time though...she's too busy trying to restructure our existing foreign policy in the middle east.

Looks like Publicus is aiming become the Lie Alleger In Chief.

Now, now, everyone, be fair. You're asking them to listen and even (gasp!) read actual reports from the field and THEN form an opinion without spouting off something willy nilly that's good for a few soundbites and some TV face time. Because, afterall, that's what this war is really all about: facetime, baby!

(I still don't like Levin, he's an opportunistic, back-stabbing, about face weasel. But bully for him for listening to the General.)

So what, the Dems realize they're being spoon-fed the latest in a long list of worn platitiudes and misguided optimism. Hang in there folks, we're almost there! If this surge doesn't do it, the next one will. War is Peace! Stay the course! We're winning! Wait until we build that wall!, no, wait a minute, scratch that one.

Bush and Co have yet to come up with anything resembling accurate predictions, estimates or assesments of the Iraq mess yet. What are the chances they're going to start now?

BTW, Harry Reid was reamed in his hometown paper editorial for his "war is lost" statements. Ouch.

People are waking up to these traitors. About time.

groucho,

Wrong. The fact is that the Democrats have decided that they do not want any ownership of this war, so they have avoided participating in it. They are being political cowards.

Apparently only the Republicans care about the war and the troops. The Democrats just can't be bothered.

Come on, Publicus. What lies has Petraeus presented? Let's hear what you've got.

Publicus, you are saying that Petraeus is a (rosy) liar?

I'm saying that as soon as one of Bush's commanders tells the not so rosy truth about Iraq, he's removed ("resigns") from command. And that to serve in the Bush administration, the cup is always half-full...even if it's full of our soldier's blood.

BTW, Harry Reid was reamed in his hometown paper editorial for his "war is lost" statements. Ouch.

People are waking up to these traitors. About time.

Ummm...a newspaper is media, NOT the people. Polls show that the majority of Americans agree with Reid.

Petraeus will say what he's told to say. It's his part of The Bargain:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRL-Rlist.html

Publicus:

Polls show that the majority of Americans agree with Reid.

What do they agree with Reid about ? Links ?

Publicuss- When the polls shift back and favor the war, will you shut up or will you "speak truth to power".
Liberals make me sick.

>Apparently only the Republicans care about the war and the troops.>

That's not apparent to me. It's not apparent to those at Walter Reed. And it's not apparent to those of us watching our young people sent to their deaths in a losing, and unnecessary "cause."

And I suppose that is the truth according to Publicus. I guess Publicus is saying the majority of Americans think the war is lost. I have to ask ole pub which battle is it that we have lost? What territory have we ceeded to the enemy? Where is it that our troops have been so damaged that they retreated from? Publicus, does there not have to be a military component to the loss of a war? Or can it just be accomplished by the idiotic proclaimation of a dedicatedly coward of a bias Senator from a small, population wise, western state?

Publicuss- When the polls shift back and favor the war, will you shut up or will you "speak truth to power". Liberals make me sick.

I was correcting a post that confused a newspaper editorial with "the people." The facts are as I stated----more Americans agree with Reid than with that editorial.

BTW -- I hope you don't get sick just because many Americans have opinions that differ from yours. That's just a part of being an American.

I disagree with you. I try to get policies that I think are bad changed. But I understand that you (and others) believe that the war in Iraq is just and necessary. But, I believe you are wrong.

I can live with the fact that we disagree----I don't have to call you names or anything...

How many folks are pissed of at this troop who wonders why flags at his Afghan base were ordered to fly at half mast for VT..but Not(even for one day) when one of our troops are killed in the line of duty

Don't know if this guy is Dem or Repub..only that he is more at risk than any of us exchanging words here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/afghanistan_flag_complaint

The MSM loves to play up the battles between conservatives and liberals, and in reporting Reid' s "The War is Lost" statement they neglected to report on the context, and the other things Reid said about the war it's "win-ability".

Kinda shoots holes in the arguments that the media is left-leaning etc... here they are skewering Reid, and if it was a conservative instead the little conservo-piggies around here would be squealing loudly about media bias, etc...

Publicus,

That's not apparent to me. It's not apparent to those at Walter Reed.

How is not listening participating?
How is not listening supporting?
How is not listening going to find a solution?

The answer to all three is 'its not'...hence my opinion.

Walter Reed is not indicative of anything.

And it's not apparent to those of us watching our young people sent to their deaths in a losing, and unnecessary "cause."

Are only Democrats watching this? Have only Democratic mothers lost sons and husbands? And whether or not it's necessary greatly depends on the person you ask. I'm sure many Iraqis would disagree with you on that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

For those who are interested, there's plenty of information that American's don't like Bush's handling of the war, don't think we're winning, and want us to set timetables and get out.

These people (Democratic members of the U.S. Congress) took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. They are being PAID by the taxpayers of their various States to perform their duties - and I might add, they are being WELL PAID.

They should be pilloried in every newspaper and on every radio or television station in this nation for the dereliction of duty and this is how the MSM displays without equivocation its total bias because they don't REPORT this behavior.

Every single one of them should be ashamed of themselves!

"They have already decided the war is lost."

It's not a war.

Walter Reed is not indicative of anything.

It clearly indicates the level of concern the Bush administration has for our wounded soldiers. Apparently, you share their level of concern.

How is not listening participating? How is not listening supporting? How is not listening going to find a solution?

When is the President going to listen to Congress and the American people? [ Answer: NEVER. ]

I think the Democrats are putting themselves in a unnecessary corner if the Iraqi war could somehow be pulled out of what looked like an inexorable defeat, a few months ago ..Bush has finally made better appointments i.e. Petraneus, who also seems to genuinely interest in what is happening to the Iraqis, and not just as central front on terrorism, as Bush is alwys keen to emphasize, but is any slight progress in the surge, too little too late to overcome Democratic scepticism and perhaps not entirely studious opposition to the war? Only a remarkarkably different situation in Baghdad will change that.

Gayle Miller --

OMG! The CONGRESS should be attacked for not protecting the Constitution?! This administration has violated the Constitution at every turn; using "signing statements" to violate laws; invading privacy at will; setting up secret prisons; torturing people.

How about this memorable lie by our commander-in-chief?

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

It's pretty nervy to accuse the Democrats of violating the Constitution. I am amazed!

Steve Crickmore...

Victory has been around the corner since 2003. That "argument" won't wash anymore.

Kat: "When the polls shift back in favor of the war..."

When do you think that will be? When we uncover WMDs and Saddam's nucuylar arsenal? Or when the Sunnis and Shiites finally recognize US for the liberators we are and shower us with rose petals? Or when all the "turrists" lay down their bombs and say "you win"?

I think most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, want no ownership of this trumped-up, mismanaged and failed war. I guess that makes us a nation of "political cowards". How un-American!

Lee:

Kinda shoots holes in the arguments that the media is left-leaning etc... here they are skewering Reid, and if it was a conservative instead the little conservo-piggies around here would be squealing loudly about media bias, etc...

Yes, the bias is clearly refuted by a study with a sample count of 1.

Publicus:

It clearly indicates the level of concern the Bush administration has for our wounded soldiers. Apparently, you share their level of concern.

One of the main problems with Walter Reed is bureaucracy. Which is something that apparently was invented by George Bush.

I've spoken with a discharged marine personally about Walter Reed. He's been there and seemed to have a somewhat different take on the matter. But then again, he wasn't a reporter gunning for the Bush administration either.

When is the President going to listen to Congress and the American people? [ Answer: NEVER. ]

He did listen to the American people, when he was voted in for another term.

Polls are not fact. Something that many Democrats need to realize. Weathervaning over major issues because of an MSNBC poll is not how I want my country run.

Nogo, I guess by replying to your post above I am veering off topic. As coming down just on just enough on the side of the fence of being a Bush supporter, I agree about the Flags flying at half-staff comment you made. I won't go any further as, again, it would move further of topic here, but the same thought has crossed my mind.

One of the main problems with Walter Reed is bureaucracy. Which is something that apparently was invented by George Bush.

And damn him for doing so! It's already filtered down into the private sector since he invented it and is a real pain in my ass.

Mike's response to Lee:

Yes, the bias is clearly refuted by a study with a sample count of 1.

HILARIOUS. Lee, like the rest of the dems in here live in the Land Of Oz. lol. Too funny.

groucho:

I think most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, want no ownership of this trumped-up, mismanaged and failed war.

Operative word in bold.

Publicus..You're right we have seen so many signs of progress.. I think what is happening is anlagous to the hockey stick for global warming.. Whether it is combination of waiting to see what is happening, the expected drop off in enemy activity from the surge, recent Sunni fighting against Al Queda; these are are some of signs of hope that Petraneus is now promoting..But when the Iraqi citizens find out the Iraqi Parliament, are passing this law renoucing their right to most of their own oil profits from their oil reserves,(oil makes up about 95% of their foreign exchange) which the US including Condi is pressuring them to do, the shit will hit the fan again, and if the Parliament dosn't pass this law, the Malaki government will face a abrupt loss of US support. To lose face with either the US or their own people..this is always the problem the Malaki government has.. they have two masters.

The Democrats have always been the party of treason.
What else is new? 1861.1865.1968.1972.1975 and now. When the enemy's main battle tactic appears to be only killing the civilian population it claims to be fighting for instead of engaging the "enemy Army of occupation", it would appear we are winning. Less self imposed restraint and an active pursuit of the enemy back to their sanctuaries in Syrian and Iran is what is now needed to end the war successfully.

On topic...
This is about Iraq..
It is irrefutable that a significant number of Americans have lost faith in our Commander-in-Chief's leadership concerning Iraq..
Not even any FOX poll supports him..
These feeble attempts to portray Dems only have significance in a diminishing number...
The leader of Iraq just said "no" to (I am assuming was the idea of General P)to walls.
When I was in Viet Nam the "problem" was they all looked alike..(unless of course they wore the uniform of the NVA)
Until someone, and it should be our President but I will settle for anyone here, articulates exactly what demonstrates victory other than Saddam (accomplished)we have lost.
Of course..by 2008..with significant progress by the elected Iraqi Govt. and "victory" just around the corner..it will be a Republican Landslide..
..
Flame away..

Clearly this war was won a long time ago MILITARILY. However, it was lost politically as soon as the it was rhetorically turned it into another Vietnam (another war that was won militarily but lost at home) for partisan political gain.

The question is, when one loses a war at home (whether Vietnam or Iraq) who was fighting for the enemy?

The obvious answer is the Democrat party. Reid, et. al. would be patriots if they were ISLAMIC JIHADISTS! However, I believe that most of them are US citizens (hard to tell most of the time of course). If they are citizens then they are traitors. There is a penalty for giving aid and comfort to the enemy and Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest should be tried for that crime and sentenced.

This war could be ended tomorrow if our military could go after the arms used by the terrorists in Iraq. Those arms are stockpiled in mosques all over the country. If we had the will to bomb every known weapons stockpile then we could put an end to this. However, since the Libs would cry foul, I doubt we'll ever take this needed measure.

Until someone, and it should be our President but I will settle for anyone here, articulates exactly what demonstrates victory other than Saddam (accomplished)we have lost.

Bush has said exactly what victory in Iraq means on several occasions, but the left stopped listening long ago.

The left is now choking off supplies to the troops on the front lines, which is a tactic used in war by the enemy. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20.

The left is now choking off supplies to the troops on the front lines, which is a tactic used in war by the enemy.

They are? What supplies haven't made it to the front lines?

There are signs that the new effort is working. There is a big difference with Sadr out and various Suni tribal leaders now in.

Just like the lefties on this thread, the Dems don't want to hear about it - for them victory in Iraq screws up everything.

Surrender quick, before we might win.

The left is now choking off supplies to the troops on the front lines, which is a tactic used in war by the enemy.

This is just more mindless, overheated rhetoric. Unfortunately for war advocates this type of rhetoric hasn't budged the American public an inch on Iraq. The American people still want to get out.

But if, in fact, the troops do literally run out of bullets while in Iraq the blame should go squarely on the Commander-in-Chief. Bush will have a bill that fully funs the war effort on his desk soon. He can sign it and make sure that the military's supplies are uninterrupted or he can veto it and put them in jeopardy.

What Bush seems to have forgotten is that it is HIS responsibility to negotiate a war funding bill that can obtain a majority and pass both houses of Congress. He refuses to recognize that there is simply not a majority of votes to support a "blank check" for the Iraqis at this time.

Instead of negotiating with Congress, Bush has chosen the course of trying to build public pressure on them with emotional appeals to "support" the troops, but the public hasn't bought it. People aren't flooding the Democrats with calls begging them to give Bush a blank check to pursue this war. Bush needs to come up with a plan B here if he wants to continue pursuing a war that the American people do not support.

The lefties and their beloved polls. Again: If a majority to americans want the IRS tax collections to cease, to a lefty that would be fine. If most americans want everyone to possess a fire arm, to a lefty that would be fine. The list goes on for those that seem to live their lives by the popular opinion.

Also, the congress approved the Iraq war. Both democrat and republican. OOps. You forgot?

Also, the Walter Reed mishap occured when the democrats to the majority oversight of the senate and house. It is on you. ww

Uh, wait - WW - it would NOT be okay with the left to close down the IRS - look at the screaming and shouting and naysaying whenever anyone mentions the FairTax here. It'd eliminate personal taxes and give a prebate back to everyone, but that's not 'progressive' so it can't be allowed. Same thing with guns - how DARE you suggest that the average law-abiding man on the street be allowed to purchase such mind-corrupting weaponry!

The only allowable polls are those that AGREE, or can be made to agree through twisted wording, with the stances of the left.

But it's really okay to deceive and twist things around, because reality is actually variable and there is no such thing as truth. It's all in how things are viewed, and it would be best if the viewing were in accordance with the touchy-feely stuff from the left instead of the hard facts on the right.

Bush has said exactly what victory in Iraq means on several occasions, but the left stopped listening long ago.

Which of the many definitions of "victory" that Bush has given us do you mean? I can only assume you are referring to the "stand down as the Iraqis stand up" definition.

Everyone knows what "victory" in a war means. It means conquering the enemy's territory, overthrowing his government, and killing or capturing all of his forces. No general, political leader or military strategist has ever defined "victory" as merely handing over the fight to another country's military as Bush suggests with his "stand up/stand down" definition.

This is one of the reasons support for the war continues to decline: Bush's definition of "victory" is so ambiguous that nobody knows when (if ever) it will be achieved. Bush himself claims to be the sole arbiter of this determination.

I say the Iraqis are ready now. It's sure as heck obvious that the vast majority of fighting age males in Iraq know how to use a weapon. What are we waiting for? Another year or two or three of our presence isn't going to change the average Iraqis sectarian identification and their proclivity to engage in sectarian warfare.

We can and should start withdrawing right now. Bush just doesn't want to because the politics of the situation isn't right for his side. It's surely not because the Iraqis are incapable of picking up and using their weapons.

It's not a war.

Well slap me on the ass and call me Judy. I'll never again mistake bullets flying, mortars landing, bombs blowing apart building and markets, IEDs ripping apart Humvees and planes flying like missiles into buildings for war ever again. Why? Because jp2 said so. And if jp2 says so, then it MUST be true.

One of the main problems with Walter Reed is bureaucracy. Which is something that apparently was invented by George Bush.

Apparently President Bush isn't responsible for his failures. Because bad things happened before he became president.

He did listen to the American people, when he was voted in for another term.

And then he stopped listening.

Don't go.

Don't know.

Don't tell.

Larkin says:

This is just more mindless, overheated rhetoric. Which I will now replace with my own mindless, overheated rhetoric.

Just filling in the unspoken truth in your post there Larkin ;-)

Also, the Walter Reed mishap occured when the democrats to the majority oversight of the senate and house. It is on you.

FALSE. The Walter Reed "mishap" [read: enormous scandal and incompetency and coverup] has been going on for years. The Democrats UNCOVERED the scandal.

There is a big difference. BUSH ADMINISTRATION lets wounded soldiers suffer in rodent infested hospital rooms. Democrats uncover the problem, demand answers and act to fix the problem.

Also, the congress approved the Iraq war. Both democrat and republican. OOps. You forgot?

Yep. They BOTH screwed up big time. And sent our soldiers to senseless deaths. The difference: one party wants to CONTINUE the senseless carnage.

Clearly this war was won a long time ago MILITARILY. However, it was lost politically as soon as the it was rhetorically turned it into another Vietnam (another war that was won militarily but lost at home) for partisan political gain.

What, exactly, did we win? A broken, destroyed country with zillions of people who want to kill us? A non-functional government which barely controls parts of the Bagdad?

Good thing we didn't "lose"!

Publicus:

Apparently President Bush isn't responsible for his failures. Because bad things happened before he became president.

You're getting warmer. But let's be more specific.

FALSE. The Walter Reed "mishap" [read: enormous scandal and incompetency and coverup] has been going on for years. The Democrats UNCOVERED the scandal.

Scandals and coverups? The Washington Post (also known as the Democrats to you Publicus) uncovered the sub-par conditions at Walter Reed. It must have been in between President Bush's weekly visits to every single Military hospital that conditions got worse.

And then he stopped listening.

Democrats can't even listen to General Petraeus, and you attempt to fault President Bush for not leading by polls?

--

It's been good talking with you, but I will be gone for the night. I'll check back for replies tomorrow.

They are? What supplies haven't made it to the front lines?

As with any long supply line it takes time for disruptions at the source to be felt in the field, but it works the other way as well. Once the source has been disrupted, restoring it still won't alleviate shortages in the field for some time. While Congress and the President play politics the DOD notified Congress of equipment disruptions three weeks ago.

Guardian "The department of defense on Friday [March 30] notified Congress that in order to protect the needs of the military, it has begun borrowing funds from other marine and army programs, including replacements for Humvees and tactical communications."

Publicus, you are an incorrigible idiot. You always want to blame us for an ongoing problem. Why is it that. I know that a knuckle dragger like you cannot remember the media calling it a quagmire when a sandstorm stuck during the opening phases of the invasion. It has been a steady drum beat of defeat since then. Do you recall how the media reported in Afghanistan. It was going to be a loss because the Soviets had failed. No one foreign power had ever succeeded in Afghanistan. When did democrats become the party of nay sayers? The cowardly lies told by the left cost millions their lives in Viet Nam. You once again seem ready to sacrifice to your quest for power. If you think the islamo-facists are going to stop if we pull out of Iraq, without stabilizing that nation, you are far stupider than I credit you with. Unless you have motives that are not evident. Could you people actually wish for American defeat. That too would be incredibly naive. With your lack of any morals, backbone or religious beliefs, how long do you think these people, who are willing to die to spread their doctrine of global islam will let you exist? Answer if you can.

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq ,November 30, 2005. The White House. Victory is defined in stages.
"Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
I'd say we were somewhere early in the middle of the first stage.

Which of the many definitions of "victory" that Bush has given us do you mean? I can only assume you are referring to the "stand down as the Iraqis stand up" definition.

Bush has been using the same definition for several years, but the left stopped listening long ago.

"Victory is for Iraq to be a democracy that can sustain itself and govern itself and defend itself, a country which will be an ally in the war on terror, a country which will deny safe haven to the al Qaeda, and a country which will serve as a powerful example of liberty and freedom in a part of the world that is desperate for liberty and freedom," President Bush Thursday, 02 February 2006

Everyone knows what "victory" in a war means. It means conquering the enemy's territory, overthrowing his government, and killing or capturing all of his forces.

By your definition we won the Iraq war four years ago. Now we are trying to rebuild a nation, something that took over 10 years to do with Japan after WW2. Of course if we would have had the current lefties in power then we would have lost WW2.

Now we are trying to rebuild a nation, something that took over 10 years to do with Japan after WW2.

Imagine how much longer it would have taken to rebuild Japan if the Japanese kept shooting at us.

Larkin , you fricken idiot. Piglosi went around and bribed countless house members with 25 billion in taxpayers dollars in order to pass their TREASONOUS SURRENDER Sup. Buying votes that she didn't have , where's the fricken outrage man?

The Criminal Democrat Party are doing exactly what they falsely accuse Republicans of doing for everyone to see. Democrats own election and voting fraud and demonstrated it for all the world to see. Nobody can deny it. Democrats betray our Country time and time again and they continue to lie to the public through their loyal liberal Media.

The criminal party of perpetual fraud =

"Democrats avoiding briefings on Iraq"

How can you support these "INCOMPETANT TREASONOUS FRAUDS"?

Simple answer, democrats do not care they just lie.

"Democrats can't even listen to General Petraeus, and you attempt to fault President Bush for not leading by polls?"

Great. Let's keep watching our soldiers die...Because we can't trust the polls that indicate that most Americans want the troops home soon. And not coming home in boxes for years to come.

Let's stick with you 30 percenters because a leader shouldn't govern by the polls. Let the blood continue to flow.

Piglosi went around and bribed countless house members with 25 billion in taxpayers dollars in order to pass their TREASONOUS SURRENDER Sup.

Yep. And imagine how much it cost her to buy the 2006 election, when we all know most Americans want the war in Iraq to continue until the last soldier dies.

What planet are you on?

What Bush seems to have forgotten is that it is HIS responsibility to negotiate a war funding bill that can obtain a majority and pass both houses of Congress. He refuses to recognize that there is simply not a majority of votes to support a "blank check" for the Iraqis at this time.

Nonesense. Once congress gave authorization for the war it's their responsibility to keep the troops supplied for as long as they are in harms way. It's the President's responsibility to conduct the war as he sees fit. If congress thinks the President is out of bounds it's their duty to impeach him or support him in the war. Rather than the courage of past generations this generation of lefties politicizes the war and in doing so they have acted like the enemy would if they could in cutting the supply lines. The President has already told Congress he will veto any bill that undermines his constitutional authority to conduct the war. If Congress wont fund the war it authorized while there are still troops in harms way then it's Congress that will have to take the blame for losing the war in Iraq.

The Criminal Democrat Party are doing exactly what they falsely accuse Republicans of doing for everyone to see. Democrats own election and voting fraud and demonstrated it for all the world to see. Nobody can deny it.

Yeah. The Democrats are champions of voter fraud. Worked so well for them in 2000 and 2004. It's so obvious that you needn't supply a shred of evidence.

By the way, there is no "Democrat" party; it's the Democratic party. You Republics will never get it...

The trolls in here seem a little more nervous and shrill than usual. Seems they smell a little trouble for their side in the air. Thank Harry for that.

Whooo hooo!

Once congress gave authorization for the war it's their responsibility to keep the troops supplied for as long as they are in harms way.

Funny. The founders wrote the Constitution differently; they said that Congress cannot authorize military funding for more than 2 years at a time...giving them an opportunity to curb a president's ability to continue a war.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The trolls in here seem a little more nervous and shrill than usual. Seems they smell a little trouble for their side in the air. Thank Harry for that.

Dream on! You guys haven't a shred of a case here, and it's obvious.

If congress thinks the President is out of bounds it's their duty to impeach him or support him in the war.

It's not Congress' only power over the war. There's plenty in the Constitution. That said, hey should impeach the president, too.

If the White House really believes that the stakes in Iraq are as high as they reallly claim, then why have they only committed just enough troops to fail to provide adequate security there and have the mission steadily failing 4 years in. With our all volunteer military these troops are now being forced into 15 month tours of duty because of our inadequate forces in Iraq. In Vietnam over 600,000 troops were there at the peak for the 19 million population, unlike the peak 140,000+ in Iraq for the even larger 26.7 million population. History proved that 600,000 troops in Vietnam would fail, so how are just 140,000 against an even larger population supposed to succeed? They can't is the simple answer.

The fact of the matter is that the White House so poorly planned the mission in Iraq, that without a draft to provide 4 or five times the manpower we currently have in Iraq, there is no real way to expect to win. For whatever their own faults, the Democrats share no responsibility for all of this. The fact that Iraq is not going well is entirely the responsibility of the White House war planners who have way too few soldiers to achieve the mission.

Without the adequate manpower to police Iraq, or a political will for the Shiite government to work some political settlement with the Sunni minority, no serious person can really expect the Iraq mission to succeed. It will certainly fail without these two key items.

"It's so obvious that you needn't supply a shred of evidence"

Exactly! It's only nitwits and cry babie like you who refuse to open their mouths and take their castor oil.

The President has already told Congress he will veto any bill that undermines his constitutional authority to conduct the war.

The president can veto a bill. But, the president doesn't have unlimited unilateral power to conduct the war any way he wants. Not under OUR Constitution. We are not a monarchy. And it's NOT Congress' "responsibilty" to do whatever the president wants.

And the millions of us who are against the war in Iraq (and our representatives in Congress who agree with us) are NOT traitors----we're patriots who care about our country...which I feel confident in saying is something most of you will never understand.

Exactly! It's only nitwits and cry babie like you who refuse to open their mouths and take their castor oil.

If THAT'S your best argument...I rest my case.

It's not Congress' only power over the war. There's plenty in the Constitution. That said, hey should impeach the president, too.

So why not have the courage of their convictions if they so deeply believe they were deceived and "lied" to and get off their ass and impeach him?

I'll tell you why: They're ball-less. Just like the Speaker of the House (of Treason). Utterly ball-less. They KNOW they don't have a case for impeachment. And even if they did, they'd have to account adn admit for their own stupidity to the nation, thus jeopardizing their own chances for re-election, so you'd have better odds of flopping a royal flush. Get the hell over it.

Finally:

"Your [Reid's] words are killing us," (U.S. Navy Lt. Jason) Nichols writes (from Baghahd...aka: NOT Washington DC). "Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we'll leave them unprotected in the future." (Gleaned from NRO; parens mine.)

Way to go, you a-hole Reid.

Clap LOUDER for DEAR LEADER!

So why not have the courage of their convictions if they so deeply believe they were deceived and "lied" to and get off their ass and impeach him?

Trust me. Millions and millions of us want the President impeached. We're with you on that. But they can also cut off funds for the war in Iraq. They have that power explicitly in the Constitution.

BTW - I'm not saying Bush "lied"; he just "got every goddamn thing absolutely wrong."

Publicus

For those who are interested, there's plenty of information that American's don't like Bush's handling of the war, don't think we're winning, and want us to set timetables and get out.

There's also info at the same link directly related to Reid which you ignored, or to be fair (not that I want to) didn't look for:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as majority leader of the Senate?"

Approve 46% Disapprove 33% Unsure 21%

Not exactly a resounding mandate for Reid Publicus.

Publicus:

There is a big difference. BUSH ADMINISTRATION lets wounded soldiers suffer in rodent infested hospital rooms. Democrats uncover the problem, demand answers and act to fix the problem.

As already pointed out the WaPo uncovered the problem, the Democrats just piled on.

However, why have you dismissed the investigative panel Bush named to discover and correct the problems at Walter Reed? Did you forget it, or just ignore it so as not to undercut your argument.

Furthermore, you have ignored or forgotten the main reason why the problems developed. Walter Reed was set for closure under the Base Realignment and Closure Program (BRAC) program (May 13, 2005).

The recommendation to close the facility was approved by none other than Dr. (Lt. Gen.) George P. Taylor, Air Force surgeon general amoung many other health professionals within the Dept of Def.

THEN, Congress approved the plan.

Now to be fair, (you wanna be right Publicus?) the problem lays with many not just McChimpyBushCo, but also Congress, the bureaucracy that allowed the closure process to fail (i.e. it was turned over to civilians for most of the work) and historically the BRAC process itself that was designed and implemented as part of the "peace dividend" that has hurt every function of the U.S. Military.

But, the president doesn't have unlimited unilateral power to conduct the war any way he wants.

Actually, he does. Hence the title: Commander in Chief. Congress does NOT have Constitutional authority or power to manager or micromanage ANY war. Period. So, in fact, the President, be he/she a Democrat or Republican or Independent or Greenie or Wiccan, has the power to conduct the war. The fact that not all members of Congress would EVER agree on how to conduct a war is exactly why the Founding Fathers (God bless them) chose to give the President power to conduct war.

Publicus posting 2 sometimes 3 posts in a row.

I smell DESPERATION.

C'mon pub, what's going on? Something really bad about to come out on your party?

Do tell! Yeeehaw.

However, why have you dismissed the investigative panel Bush named to discover and correct the problems at Walter Reed? Did you forget it, or just ignore it so as not to undercut your argument.

Closing the barn door AFTER the animals escaped isn't exactly a brilliant move. Bush screwed up...I think, because he doesn't care about our soldiers. At first, the administration downplayed the problem, but finally acted when public pressure got too hot. Bush handled Walter Reed as well as he handled Katrina----and the public knows it.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as majority leader of the Senate?"

Approve 46% Disapprove 33% Unsure 21%

Reid's popularity exceeds Bush's...so, what's your point?

Publicus posting 2 sometimes 3 posts in a row.

I'm active because I went away for awhile and had found a lot of drivel to answer. Fire away!

Trust me. Millions and millions of us want the President impeached. We're with you on that. But they can also cut off funds for the war in Iraq. They have that power explicitly in the Constitution...

You're not with me on a DAMN thing, make no mistake about THAT.

Go ahead, cut off the funds. Do it. Just shut the hell up and do it. Show the country how much you really "support the troops." Stand by your convictions, you weasels.

Democrats don't have the goddamn balls; nor are they THAT stupid--I'll give them that much.They'd be crushed in 2008.

BTW - I'm not saying Bush "lied"; he just "got every goddamn thing absolutely wrong."

Highly subjective and based on opinion, say I; and not impeachable offense by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, he does. Hence the title: Commander in Chief. Congress does NOT have Constitutional authority or power to manager or micromanage ANY war. Period.

Congress can pull funds from a war to end it. Period.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Hooson:

History proved that 600,000 troops in Vietnam would fail,

Interesting definition of "fail," if that's what you really call the end of the Vietnam war.

I call it a prelude to what your seeing now. Politicians attempting to run a war from D.C. then pulling funding.

Publicus, you on the left are traitors and cowards, liars and thieves. I truly hope radical muslims get their hands on you to demonstrate what we are fighting against. I wonder what your thoughts would be when the 12 year old boy first places the sharpened blade against your throat.

Congress can pull funds from a war to end it. Period.

Then do it! Just STFU and do it.

And as usual you miss the point of reply: Congress does NOT have the power to wage or conduct war, no matter how much you'd like to think so. Got a beef with that? Go take it up with the Founding Fathers. I'm sure an Islamofascist could help you make the trip...

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money...

By de-funding the troops, how on God's name does that support the Armies.

Un-frakking-real.

This administration has violated the Constitution at every turn; using "signing statements" to violate laws; invading privacy at will; setting up secret prisons; torturing people.

1.) Signing statements can't violate the constitution because they have no legal authority. They are merely statements regarding the executive's intentions towards bills. Opinions on their propriety vary but claiming they somehow are unconstitutional is flatly ridiculous.

2.) Repeat after me class, there is no right to privacy. There are rights to be secure in your person and your property. All of which contain provisions for their waiver, especially in national security instances. Granted the intelligence agencies went a little overboard immediately after 9/11 and were rightfully rebuked for not following the rules. That does not however mean that seeking intelligence is wrong and should be ceased.

3.) Sorry, but the CIA can set up anything it wants outside the US borders.

4.) Can you cite a single case of proven torture since Bush took office? Mind you that much of what the media decries as torture is not torture(ie. waterboarding, loud music, etc.).

Publicus

Congress can pull funds from a war to end it. Period.

Opps! Got your crank caught in a wringer and had to backtrack from this didn't you:

But, the president doesn't have unlimited unilateral power to conduct the war any way he wants. Not under OUR Constitution. We are not a monarchy.

Got ahead, use THAT power, the only one available, cut off the funds.

BTW, whatever happened to the dems meme about Bush not listening to his Gens?

Publicus, you on the left are traitors and cowards, liars and thieves. I truly hope radical muslims get their hands on you to demonstrate what we are fighting against. I wonder what your thoughts would be when the 12 year old boy first places the sharpened blade against your throat.

Sweet. Please tell me this isn't representative of the attitude of most of you here at Wizbang. I'm beginning to feel less than welcome.

marc -

The Congress has the power to start and end wars. They have the power of the purse. That's more than enough to end this war. What's stopping them? They have a razor thin majority in the Senate and not enough votes in the House to override a veto.

That said, the simplest way for them to end this is to NOT SEND a bill to the president funding continued war in Iraq.

The democrats don't need no stinkin briefings. They're so smart they know everything in the world. Just ask the smartest woman in the world who didn't know here husband was cheating (dozens of times) right in front of her. Anyone remember his beeline for Monica and the big hug at one of his Ra Ra meetings? Get a clue smart woman, he's still doing it. Last I heard with a newswoman from the frozen north. Now she has vowed the clean the white house carpet again, trying to get Slicks DNA out of it?
Publicus, when were you ever welcome anywhere since you turned 4? Just kidding, we would be lost without the wisdom of traitors and wimps.

Publicus

That said, the simplest way for them to end this is to NOT SEND a bill to the president funding continued war in Iraq.

Put another way, not even doing the meager portion of this issue they can do, defund the war.

Or another way, being gutless and not having the gonads to send the bill up regardless of any possible veto or a majority to over ride it.

Taltos -

1. Partially right, but substantially wrong on signing statements. Bush has used them to describe how he intends to defy the law by "interperting" the law to mean whatever he wants it to mean. When he actually BREAKS the law (as he has done repeatedly), then he has violated the Constitution. Read the Constitution: he's not sworn to protect the people; he's sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution.

2. You're wrong on privacy. Read the Federalist Papers. The founders were reluctant to include a Bill of Rights because they were worried (correctly, as it happens) that some people would insist that those were ALL the rights that the people have. In fact, people have ALL the rights EXCEPT what they delegate to the government. I think the Declaration of Independence is most relevant here, too...as this administration and it's supporters are seeking to violate our unalienable rights.

3. The CIA can setup secret torture prisons? Is that the kind of country you want to live in? And put anyone these SUSPECT of being a bad guy there forever? Are you comfortable with that?

4. Waterboarding is NOT torture? Then, lets use it to get the truth out of Alberto Gonzales. Maybe that will job his memory.

4.

What's stopping them? They have a razor thin majority in the Senate and not enough votes in the House to override a veto.

That said, the simplest way for them to end this is to NOT SEND a bill to the president funding continued war in Iraq.

You keep caterwauling about this, so YOU show the courage of YOUR convictions and write your Congressmen or Congresswoman and tell them you want them to de-fund the troops.

Oh wait, are you even from this country? Something tells me you're not...If so...

I'm beginning to feel less than welcome.

That's the first time you've made me laugh, Publicus.

mantis --

Thanks! I'd much rather make people laugh than convert them to my political opinions!

Some of you need to take Reid's lead and back away from the "war is lost," crapola: Harry has, in fact he now says "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."

You could almost call it Mission Accomplished

Now THAT"S funny.

You keep caterwauling about this, so YOU show the courage of YOUR convictions and write your Congressmen or Congresswoman and tell them you want them to de-fund the troops.

Again? How many times do I have to write to them?

Read the Constitution: he's not sworn to protect the people; he's sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution.

1.) And the consitution gives the executive control of executing the law which to some degree involves interpreting it. If someone has issue with the method that the executive is using, they're more than welcome to take it up with the judiciary. The signing statements are nothing other than a statement of the executive's intentions, they have no legal power and are generally ignored by the courts.

2.) I'm really getting sick of having to point this out. The constitution is a legal document, the federalists papers, the declaration of indepence, and any number of other things written by the founders are not. Whatever their reasons for not including this or that in the constitution, they didn't include it. Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply that the people have any rights other than those listed, hell habeus corpsus is termed a privilege and not a right.

3.) The constitution's power ends at the border(recall you called these things attacks on the constitution) so the CIA is free to do anything they wish (providing it's been authorized by higher ups) outside of it. Frankly I'm not losing any sleep at night at the thought of the spooks roughing up people who want me dead, sorry. I still think that the executive order RE assassinations was a very shortsighted and wrongheaded idea.

4.) The Geneva defintion of torture requires "severe" physical or mental harm. Dumping water on someone's head to make them think they're drowing while undoubtably terrifying, has no lasting harm.

In short, you disagree with Bush's actions, I get it and that's fine. However terming things like this violations of the constitution is just stupid.

sorry. I still think that the executive order RE assassinations was a very shortsighted and wrongheaded idea.

And so was the Dem inspired crapola that prevented the CIA use of "sources," shall we say, of questionable character.

You can listen to 25 of Americas top Talk Show host for free via Streaming Audio at The Internet Radio Network.
http://netradionetwork.com

Ya those Dems...R.I.P those that fell today
- 9 killed
Nine Task Force Lightning Soldiers died as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion near a patrol base in Diyala Province, Monday. 20 Soldiers and one Iraqi civilian were wounded when a suicide vehicle born IED attacked the patrol base...
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3320
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 12
Total 3332

Support our Troops
Bring-em Home

If ya all started bitching about the worthless Iraqi Parliament..that our brave men and women are there for...
Let's see
Dem's want fewer troops there that could be killed
You guys want MORE troops there that could be killed.

1.) And the consitution gives the executive control of executing the law which to some degree involves interpreting it.

Wrong. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Bush cynically "interprets" laws to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Furthermore, if the president and the author of a bill disagree about it's meaning, I think the author has the edge...Don't you?!

The constitution is a legal document, the federalists papers, the declaration of indepence, and any number of other things written by the founders are not.

Do you have any feeling for the American ideal, or do you just like to follow orders? The Constitution is a legal document designed to achieve a particular purpose: to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Furthermore, you can't understand the Constitution without reading the Federalist Papers----those are descriptions by the authors of the Constitution describing what it means. You can, if you chose, ignore them and spit in the eye of the founders. I, however, care about the blessings of liberty, unalienable rights, and other ideals upon which the idea of America is based.

3.) The constitution's power ends at the border(recall you called these things attacks on the constitution) so the CIA is free to do anything they wish (providing it's been authorized by higher ups) outside of it.

Just because you can get away with something legally doesn't mean our country should be doing it. Should our country be a promoter of torture? If so, how can we claim to be an enemy of terrorism? What kind of morality should our country have? Do you ever ask yourself these questions? Apparently, waterboarding is fine with you. Many Americans find it repulsive. Count me among them.

Publicus:

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Correct, now show us where the Supreme Court has dictated the Congress as the power to direct tactics, strategy, deployment of troops or anything else related to waging a war with the exception of "the power of the purse," and legal declaration of war?

Good luck

Publicus you libelous lying SOB. You make unsubstanciated charges based upon lies that flow like water from a stream. Either you are ignorant of history or you are an active traitor to this nation. That is if you are even a resident. I think you are a member of al Qaeda.

And the millions of us who are against the war in Iraq (and our representatives in Congress who agree with us) are NOT traitors----we're patriots who care about our country...which I feel confident in saying is something most of you will never understand.
Posted by: Publicus
--------

hahahahaha, hilarious. You have to laugh to keep from getting mad at the way these fools are twisting language to make words mean things they never had before.

Correct, now show us where the Supreme Court has dictated the Congress as the power to direct tactics, strategy, deployment of troops or anything else related to waging a war with the exception of "the power of the purse," and legal declaration of war?

Don't need to. The power of the purse is enough. No money, no war.

BTW -- if you are interested in Congress' war powers, consult the Constitution.

jp --

Thanks for providing support for my point. You CAN'T understand how someone (millions, actually) can disagree with the president and be a patriot.

Marc, I think it's a very significant fact that more than 600,000 American troops in South Vietnam with a population of 19 million could not win over a Communist insurgency after 12 years of combat. The slender 140,000+ U.S. forces fighting the Sunni and some Shiites insurgent forces in an even larger nation of 26.7 million have even less chance of victory. I know of no military that has ever defeated an insurgency unless they have at least a 7 to 1 numerical advantage over the insurgents. It just hasn't happened in military history that I know of. The insurgents in Iraq and their Sunni civilian supporters probably run into the low millions, making it numerically impossible for the tiny U.S. forces to win. During WWII the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan for example because the insurgency there could have taken up to 1 million American lives by military estimates, meaning a force of several million U.S. soldiers would be required for victory in a hand to hand war.

Of course most people here don't really care about the success of the war, they just want to vent partisan political steam and trashtalk about one party being someone any better than the other, instead of a discussion of why the war is really failing. Too few U.S. soldiers to begin with is the #1 reason this war will be lost. The American public gave this administration four long years to succeed and now is pulling their support. Just like Vietnam, the U.S. is only looking for a face-saving way out now.

Publicus,

You are correct to say that the Federalist Papers are fundamental to understanding the intent of the creators of the Constitution.

I'm fairly sure I don't agree with anything else you have said, or will say, but you got that one right.

Can we agree that: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens did not have your advice in mind when they cited European Law in support of quotas for college admissions and against the death penalty? Can we agree that as good a source as Confucius might be, he is not to have any influence on US Law? No matter how the Oracle at Delphi has put it - or the wise men of Brussels - this has no bearing whatsoever.

Do we agree?

What happened to the "living document theory" where Justices can do whatever they want, no limits? I presume you, now, cast aside those inclinations of the left while you wrap yourself around a pillar of the right, to suit your current purpose.

Because it would take a lot of chutzpah to be running the Federalist Papers at us while simultaneously endorsing the three idiots (Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg) and their reliance on European Law to interpret our Constitution.

I agree with you on your point about European law and Confucius are not part of American law. Any case resting on either of them is not properly supported. (You can certainly cite anyone to help explain a point. (Shakespeare, for example, says many things better than I could!) But, we agree! Cool!

Regarding the "living document" theory of the Constitution...well, I haven't said a thing about that until now. If it means that Justices can do whatever they want, I disagree with it. I suspect that Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg would say that their view of the Constitution doesn't allow them to do whatever they want with it. I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

BTW -- I don't think that the Federalist Papers is a manifesto in support of everything I favor. I know that Republicans can find much to agree with in them too! It's for all of us!

My overall view is this: The ideals of the nation are described in the Declaration and the preamble to the Constitution. How the Constitution is designed to realize those ideals is explained in the Federalist Papers. And the Constitution is the legal framework that the founders hoped would help us to realize those ideals.

The whole thing is, I think, brilliant!

Wrong. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Bush cynically "interprets" laws to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Furthermore, if the president and the author of a bill disagree about it's meaning, I think the author has the edge...Don't you?!

I never said it didn't. I said part of the executive's job is interpreting how laws should be enforced, which is it. The author ,in this case which I take you to mean congress, as goofy as it sounds doesn't really get to dictate how their laws are enforced. But I think you're missing my point in the original response I wrote. You made claim that these things were contrary to the constitution and they aren't. The president could do the exact same thing without writing a signing statement and the effect would be identical.

Do you have any feeling for the American ideal, or do you just like to follow orders? The Constitution is a legal document designed to achieve a particular purpose: to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Furthermore, you can't understand the Constitution without reading the Federalist Papers----those are descriptions by the authors of the Constitution describing what it means. You can, if you chose, ignore them and spit in the eye of the founders. I, however, care about the blessings of liberty, unalienable rights, and other ideals upon which the idea of America is based.

I never said that the extraneous documents of the founders were worthless, merely that they have no authority to the issue. The natural rights argument is all well and good from a philosophical standpoint but doesn't work so well in a legal system where you need to have specific limits.

Just because you can get away with something legally doesn't mean our country should be doing it. Should our country be a promoter of torture? If so, how can we claim to be an enemy of terrorism? What kind of morality should our country have? Do you ever ask yourself these questions? Apparently, waterboarding is fine with you. Many Americans find it repulsive. Count me among them.

Once again, what torture? If people don't like waterboarding they're well within their rights to draft a bill banning it's use, that still doesn't make it torture. As for morality, I freely admit that I couldn't care less what happens to people who want me dead. You seem to profess a fondness for the founders. You know in their day there was no need for prisons as anyone found fighting out of uniform was summarily executed on the spot, that solution works for me too. I'd like to know what method you propose for extracting necessary information from hostile actors. Somehow I don't think tea and cookies will cut it.

Finally, this all started with your claim that these things are unconstitutional. I refuted that claim point by point and you proceeded to take stabs at my character. Anyway, I'm done for the night. Later folks.

Publicus lies and distorts.

One example: " ...rat-infested hospital rooms"

While the temporary housing at WRAMC was despicable, it wasn't the hospital. It was housing.

I just got up for a glass of water and thought I'd scan this thread. What tripe. Back to bed.

jp --

Thanks for providing support for my point. You CAN'T understand how someone (millions, actually) can disagree with the president and be a patriot.

====================

oh I understand, you are redefining words to help you live with your treason. Whether subconciously or not. Its what happens when you try to control the language.

Yep, your serious national security party.

Stupid bastards.