Its been long obvious that their political success depends on the failure of our missions. They have been acting like this all along.

When even the likes of Keith Ellison are getting a sense of the shifting fotunes of war, maybe its time for some of our dead end trolls to get back on the bandwagon. C'mon guys it's ok to want your contry to win.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-ellison-iraq_N.htm

It's heartening to know that I'm with the 70% of the country which disagrees with the whizzers view on the war. There's comfort in those numbers. When will one of the whizzers declare, while pounding his/her chest, that 70% of us are traitors? And 70% of us are "dead end trolls" too - marvelous.

JFO
I wouldn't be so trusting of those polls. Many of them are designed and used to generate news stories.

And while I'm not pounding on my chest (I only do that watching Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies), it is American habit, so to speak, to invoke patriotism in such arguments. You are among good company, literally....Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy were similarly accused in the run-up to WWII. Say what you will about Kennedy, but Lindbergh was an icon in this country.

I read the quoted bit as more than just admitting that good news is a problem.

It also admitted that Democratic support for withdrawing from Iraq isn't iron clad, that a significant group of moderate to conservative Democrats exist that aren't going to toe the party line if Petraeus has a good report and there is progress in Iraq by September.

Some of the Democrat big-wigs have come out and said that they will refuse to listen to Petraeus and that their world view does not allow the surge to have success or conditions in Iraq to improve... but it isn't all of them, and pushing in the face of a September report that may show that we've got our methods figured out in Iraq with the expectation that this is going to work, will potentially split the Democrat majority.

What this means for JFO is that his 70% is a fantasy.

JFO,

I doubt that you're a traitor, or that a vast majority of that interesting 70% number you've presented are traitors, at all.

You're simply a product of the Democratic leadership so desperate for executive power that they're willing to throw their country under the bus in hopes of being the ones to save it.

Münchhausen Syndrome, by proxy, is an ugly thing. Especially ugly when the perpetrators are holding elected positions; and in a position to cause great suffering within the ranks of our military.

Face it, man, the Democratic Party, as a viable and lucent political entity, died on a sunny day in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Ever since it's been a boondoggle and collection of non-erudite, immature, diaper tinklers that fade into the wallpaper whenever faced with an opportunity to make a stand.

Like children with bad parents, your 70% is not to blame for their own behavior. They are simply the products of a bad environment.

Trust me. I was a registered Democrat (and I guess, still am since I haven't switched party affiliation) until I looked behind the green curtain of the Democratic party and found nothing more than a bunch of old phone books and voo-doo dolls.

Just look at their political stands of the last 30 years:

- we're not Nixon
- we're not Ford
- we're not Bush (I and II)

Other than that, what has the Democratic party done for America? A failed health care initiative? A complete and utter debacle when our citizens were held hostage for 444 days? Blackhawk Down? Jokes about dry cleaning? Mockery of our drafted servicemen?

Oh, yeah ... and that defunding of the VietNam war which lead to the basis for a wonderful movie: The Killing Fields.

What else ...? Oh yeah: National disgrace and malaise.

The fact that Kim was given enough reason to make this post should be inescapable proof that the Dems have no love, nor tolerance, for the needs and wants of this nation - only that, after voting to go to war for political gain, they want to go in the opposite direction for same - and, should that mean more of our service men and women are injured or killed - so be it. That way, they can point to the mounting body counts and blame Bush for everything.

And they can do all of that without blushing. It is impressive.

No man, your 70% aren't traitors. The people you keep voting into office ... not so sure.

They do so make it difficult to argue FOR their patriotism, I'll tell you that.

yo yo yo now dat's a post

Hugh:

Interesting that it's only those in the 30% who disagree with the polls. You certainly might have a point were we only talking about one but we're not. I live in one of the middle America states, Iowa. We have a history of patriotism, our National Guard has been stretched to its limits but they keep on going back. The sentiment is overwhelming here to get the hell out of Iraq. This is not exactly a hot bed of liberalism, pretty much a middle of the road group of folks. So I believe the 70% number. I have Republican friends with whom I passionately disagree about many things - we debate all the time. Almost all of them have come to the place that we need to get out.

yo:

You're diatribe is why I'm happy that I'm on a different side than you are.

Yo, that was freakin' awesome.

yo

You left out "We're not Reagan"!

Que the music....Where's your head at?....

JFO, when you have adopted a position of being against the nations' efforts, just because your political opponents are in charge, you've got a problem that someone with a conscience would be embarrassed by.

Synova:

It also admitted that Democratic support for withdrawing from Iraq isn't iron clad, that a significant group of moderate to conservative Democrats exist that aren't going to toe the party line if Petraeus has a good report and there is progress in Iraq by September.

Exactly! Call Pelosi and Reid and the rest what you want, but in the end they are politicians. They KNEW the Blue Dog segment of their party weren't in lock-step with pulling out of Iraq and or giving deadlines.

As a result every bill presented was chocked full of pork for the "Blue Dog States" to buy their agreement.

"You're diatribe is why I'm happy that I'm on a different side than you are"

- JFO

Honestly, and with all due respect and civility, man, I could give two sh**s what the f*** side you're on.

I'm tired of the arguments you and your party present. They're tired, worn out and have yet, after many a decade, to do anything resembling productive for this nation.

I'm not a fan of all republicans, nor do I support them out of hand, but I tell you that it's nice to know that they're around when the s*** hits the fan.

Reagan stopped the Cold War. Clinton couldn't take out Somalia.

The best the Dems have to offer is much catterwalling and folk songs.

How's that been working out for you, so far?

SPQR

You do what so many whizzers do - make grand assumptions about the motives of folks who don't agree with you. In your mind you can't fathom how others might disagree on principal, that it has nothing at all to do with "politics." You pretend to know the motives of those on the other side, when in fact you have no idea. It's actually more sad than funny to read the kind of comment you and others make about these issues.

That 70% who want us out have to be wrong and you have to be right?

yo

Keep on spewing and spittling (sic) - you might get it all out and then you can go get a latte and relax. But maybe you just like acting like a tough guy.

>That 70% who want us out have to be wrong and you have to be right?

Please, JFO convince the Dems running for office that 70% of the country wants us to lose in Iraq... PLEASE.

JFO:

Keep on spewing and spittling (sic) - you might get it all out and then you can go get a latte and relax. But maybe you just like acting like a tough guy.

Sooo... you have nothing to counter what he posted? I mean if you feel it's all "spewing and spittling" certainly you have a well reasoned response to show your side of what was written.

Right?

JFO

I'll put this another way.

The published polls on the war in Iraq are presented by the MSM, major polling organizations and the leadership of the Democratic Party as representative of how Americans will vote. That is why Democrats have made the GWOT the central issue in their campaigns for the executive office and Congress.

My point is this: if the Iraq war and the broader War on Terror were made a plebiscite, the results would be far different than what you see in media polls today. And that is why the Democrats are so consumed with very recent reports that the surge may succeed. They have invested their future in the failure of the war, or, said another way (which Churchill clearly understood in his time) they have made the war and upcoming elections a plebiscite.

There are terms for those who choose to subsume their own judgment and thoughts to the majority, JFO. "Flock" and "herd" are among the most generous.

Toss in the lost-established unreliability of both the polls and those commissioning the polls, and one wonders why you are so eager to yield your own opinions to those you are told constitute a majority.

But then one realizes that to express such interest in your opinion is placing far more value on what you think than you apparently do.

J.

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

Increase Same Decrease Remove All Unsure
12 15 30 36 7
12 18 29 34 7

For what it's worth JFO (maybe not much given it's a "poll") people seem evenly divided.

JFO and his ilk are irrelevent. They have no core. No sound belief or policy. JFO proves it by siting a poll. If the poll turns around, so will he. They, the lefty trolls, do not understand commitment, honor, integriy, follow through and most importantly, because it is recently proven, leadership. ww

Paul:

See, that's the rub isn't it. The word lose. How about is as losing thousands and thousands of lives policing a civil war? How about as in losing arms and legs and eyes while policing a civil war. How about as in losing hundreds of millions of dollars, stolen and wasted while policing a civil war? How about losing members of the National Guard because we're engaged in policing a civil war?

That's what losing the war means.

An intelligent and reasoned response Jay. But then I would expect nothing more from you.

To clarify:

To increase or remain the same is at 27%, to decrease the number is at 30% to pull out all together, which is decidedly different than the other options, is at 36%.

JFO:

civil war

As long as you fixate on that term, a term that was perpetrated by the "pull out crowd", and completely disregard that AQ IS in Iraq, discount the Iraq Study Groups assessment (along with many others including the U.N.) that any pull out prior to AG being defeated and civil strife being minimized you will never allow yourself a clear picture of what is happening in Iraq.

Did you have time to poll and focus group that response, JFO? Because I just did, and 79.65% of average Americans disagreed with it.

In light of that statistic, and your loudly-proclaimed loyalty to the Will Of The Flock, perhaps you ought to reconsider it?

J.

From the poll you just cited Marc - 70% disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq. So you do agree about that number?

Jay:

I repeat my first comment about your whatever it is you wrote.

JFO your reply shows how naive you are. Those are the cost of war.

They are the same if you win or lose the war.

The difference is your side wants *George Bush* to lose the war so you can gain political power. Everyone knows that. Today's slip just confirms it.

The American people don't want us to lose the JFO, that's your problem.. But please convince as many dems as possible that the American people want us to lose a war. The self destruction will be oh so grand to watch.

I will not even acknowledge that traitorous frauds 70% lie. JFO you are straight up disgrace and democrat. That is all that needs to be said about you.

The are two type of people in this Country Americans and democrats.

BTW Jay when do the wizbang-nazis start deleting JFO for disagreeing with what's posted?

I'm just asking'

Paul

There you go doing what i said earlier - reading my mind. Yes those are the costs of war, of course they are. And what a cost for this war. You're so full of shit to say i want Bush to lose so dems can gain political power. It's be like me saying you want war because you like to see people die. "Everyone" knows what Paul? Are you a diviner, a reader of minds or crazy?

Jesus I don't get you folks who think because folks disagree with you it has to be "political" or "BDS" or traitorous. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

JFO

This is not a policing action. read this:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bread-and-a-circus-part-i-of-ii.htm

JFO got taken in by AQ and their attempt (failed) to convince the world that the Iraqi people were behind the bombings and murders and there's no way to change a closed and dangerous (to the American people) mind. We are fighting the same AQ that were there long before the invasion. One of the first bombing missions was an AQ camp. The AQ residents fled to Iran for good reason, one of our very own democrat congess critters told the enemy we were coming. Can't find the link to the name but it is documented fact. It American law was applied as written, half or more of the democrats in congress and most government offices (FBI,CIA,NSA,DOJ) would be on trial for treason or already shot. The democrat/socialist/communist followers would have been used as backstops. I guess President Bush can build thousand of concentration camps, the dhimmi's have accused him of planning, in a few months. He managed to plan and execute the 9-11 bombings in a few months.(sacr. on)
"The president had five polyps removed from his colon. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Carl Levin and Dick Durbin are all doing fine." quote stolen.

Paul:

You know the routine as well as I do. We have to run it through a series of polls (preferably by Zogby or Gallup) and paid for by either the New York Times or the AP. Then we have to "adjust" the results. Then it has to be reported on at least three major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC). Then -- and only then -- can we say that 70% of the readership wants him gone, and we pull his plug.

Alternately, we get Jamil Hussein and/or Reuters to produce some convincing photos of him driving an SUV or watching Fox News or wearing a Fred Thompson button. Then we denounce him as a fraud and pull the plug.

As a last resort, we get Al Gore to analyze his carbon footprint.

J.