We will now wait for the usual liberals here as they begin to have collective apoplexy.

Limbaugh has an official "memory department", or something like that. Too bad the voters aren't equipped with such a thing, as the forthcoming hoodwinking that approacheth will no doubt be very effective. Just harken back to jack-off mythas' recent re-election, no one in the district even knew what a traitor he is, and probably still don't.

Thank goodness for hell, it does beckon so. It'd just be nice to see a little of it, if not at least justice, right here on earth, for the bastards before they go to their doom.

I would hope for an electorat smart enough to vote these phonies out of office...but since I live in California I realize such an electorat does NOT exist!

Justrand,
You poor slob. Oh wait, I live in NorCal! (if this was audio, now is when you'd hear the Sam Kinison scream) argh

If the rate of progress stays as is, come November 2008, the Dems will claim that if it wasn't for them, Saddam would still be in power and it was all the GOP's fault that the US didn't invade sooner.

hermie,
Mrs. C has already taken so many positions on the issue, that she will be able to make said claims and actually be (technically) "honest". Why doesn't old video tape work for our side, but when a republican said something iffy 27 years ago in a fishing sciff, with a belly full of beer, on his prom night, it gets broadcast 24/7 until my brain bleeds ?

I know, there's no whining in politics, but just the same...

The last time we were doing alright, they focused on an Abu Garib. They blew it out of proportion in terms of coverage and beat that horse to death, resurrected it, and beat it to death again.

I'm sure they'll make find another atrocity to focus on to detract from the success and put proponents of the war on the defensive.

I don't doubt Beauchamp was a primer for the forthcoming onslaught.

And to think, Lincoln imprisoned/deported thousands of enemies of the state and the Bush admin. caves to the "ideal" of giving mass murderers of women and children a free pass on torture, as well as give them constitutional rights. And now they want to close Gitmo too.

Well, at least poor, idealic johnny jihad didn't have to suffer the cruelties lying within that hell-hole. And now there's a big drive to have him released. An American takes up arms against his own, and he's not summarily shot !?! Yep, We're boned.

"They're not supporting the troops. They are supporting their own reelection."

A sad truth that keeps rearing its ugly head. Even as a conservative/centrist, I find it so disheartening. A part of me wants to believe there's no ulterior motive behind what should be a genuine pride in what our military is doing. But at this stage of the game, it's obvious the voter's opinion is of utmost importance.

How do you get coffee off of an LED screen? I sprewed it all over when I read the traitor Turbin Durbin's statement. Guess it's time to go on the congressional site and send him another Email to remind him that elephants never forget an enemy of the country and he is one big fat one.

Pudge,

"(if this was audio, now is when you'd hear the Sam Kinison scream)"

If this was audio, ya might hear "Ayyyy CHIHUAHUA! a helicopter maybe even a gunshot or two in the distance.

"An American takes up arms against his own, and he's not summarily shot !?! Yep, We're boned."

I don't expect the cowardly democrats to pick up arms to takeover our Country when their words are enough and are killing our soldiers. Their actions and WORDS are UNFORGIVABLE.

And in Kerry's case we know where the grain of rice is located.
======================================

Bwhahahahahahahahahah...

I love stories like this. Keep 'em coming.

:)

"If the rate of progress stays as is, come November 2008, the Dems will claim ..."

The soldiers they supported all along succeeded despite the best efforts of George Bush to get them all killed. Electing the dems to a majority in congress in '06 was what finally made it possible for our efforts in Iraq to succeed. George broke it, but it took the Dems to fix it.

The list will be as endless as it will be shameless.

Rickbert, the Democrats flee hearings when Genrals (Keane) talk about success. Sadly democrats need failure to feel good about themselves.

Exactly what role do the democrats have in the current war?

Rickbert proves -again- that many Dems are just freaking insane.

Rickbert is the result of special education from the Public Schools. The short bus, don't you know. If he thinks a democrat knows how to form a strategy and/or plan, is just nuts. ww

I don't know Rickbert, but I think you guys might have missed a pretty good example of sarcasm.

I've noticed a lot of predictions of a highly positive report from Petraeus. The MSM and Dems seem to be pushing this lately.

I guess we'll be seeing more of this leading up to September. Then, when the actual report comes out and it's only 'moderately positive' or 'not 100% positive' the MSM and Dems will say "Aha! Things are worse than we thought! It's a quagmire!"

85. Posted by Les Nessman | August 1, 2007 9:06 AM |

The best part is, I'm in Chicago - I can vote against Durbin three or four times.

Les, I hope you're wrong. That the Dems would purposefully play it up only to shoot it down when September rolls around, saying it's not as good as they were led to believe. They won't put the emphasis on the fact that there were successes or that those successes were beyond anything thus far and the resulting climate could create an atmosphere for those successes to grow exponentially, but will claim they didn't meet a (not yet clearly specified by the Dems) standard. They've set goalposts for the Iraqi government to meet and measure their progress painstakingly, but they've not so clearly defined military benchmarks.

In many ways I'm glad the Dems have been critical in that it forces the military to meet or push harder for certain success. But I do think too many have gone way overboard and beyond reason in their criticisms with unbending characters like Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Murtha, et al who simply won't accept anything less than a pullout NOW - even in light of positive results.

"but it took the Dems to fix it"

Yup,

1. By immediately passing a non-binding resolution declaring the current strategy a failure before it even started.

2. By having one of their leaders publicly declare publicly: "the war is lost".

3. By continuing to only report the terrorist's success and ignoring the US's successes on the network news and in the papers and leftist blogs.

4. By walking out of meetting because hearing about all the success of the American troops is just too hard to bear.

5. By aiding and encouraging the enemy by attaching a terrorist victory date to the military spending bills.

6 etc.

Yup, the Democrat are trying hard to fix things (so their terrorist allies can defeat the US).

What color is the sky in you world Rickbert?

"The soldiers they supported all along succeeded despite the best efforts of George Bush to get them all killed."

You know, there is some truth in this statement. George Bush was try to kill the solders the Dems supported all along (the terrorists).

The part about the terrorists succeeding is false though...

I don't know Rickbert, but I think you guys might have missed a pretty good example of sarcasm.

18. Posted by Oyster

Echo's to Oyster-----I think you may have missed the /sarc off that was missed by Rickbert. Of course this would have been the "gospel truth" if ol' Barn-barn had written this.......

I'm not familiar with Rickbert either, but if that was sarcasm he is a master of it. That post sounded exactly like typical leftist denial-spin.

We all know that crawdads have brains the size of a grain of rice and liberals and animal rights wackos have the same sized brains

Wow, you guys are so worked up you attack without pause, and end up directing your fire at those who agree with you.

Rickbert is obviously stating what he thinks "Dems will say," and his addendum to this (unrealistic) estimation is "The list will be as endless as it will be shameless." He is not endorsing the hypothetical.

No really, look at his blog. He's got videos from Mary Katherine Ham and Blackfive, and apparently he's part of the weird anti-youtube brigade of rightwingers. He's one of you. Calm yourselves.

Oh, and Paul,

Surprise, surprise, don't you know that all but one of them is up for reelection this cycle.

I don't know about the others' constituencies, but if Durbin is cheerleading the war, that doesn't actually help him in '08 (not that he needs any help; he's a shoo-in). Illinois wants out, you know.

What's also interesting here is that the Dhimmicrats are thumbing their noses at the rabid anti-war base... the ones that have been sending in the donations. (MoveOn, George Soros, Kos, etc.)

I expect that the money will start to dry up soon, and then the Dhimmicrats will start singing another tune.

The Party of the Donkey has done an absolutely masterful job of painting itself into a corner where they can't be too pro-war for fear of pissing off the money donors, but can't be too anti-war for fear of pissing off the voters--especially when things are starting to succeed, like with Petraeus' strategy (of which "the Surge" is only the first part).

It's kinda fun watching them try to please both sides.

"Illinois wants out, you know."

Again this strawman?

Pretty much everyone wants out. The question is does Illinois want the terrorists to win? If they do, Durbin is a shoe-in. If Illinois want the terrorists to be defeated, well that's another story.

Hell, even Texas wants out. But only after all the Al Qaeda, Baathists, Islamo-fascists and jihadists are goat food.

Pretty much everyone wants out.

I lot of people don't want us out of Iraq anytime soon.

The question is does Illinois want the terrorists to win?

Of course we do. We're all terrorist-lovers here.

Hell, even Texas wants out. But only after all the Al Qaeda, Baathists, Islamo-fascists and jihadists are goat food.

Translation: Never.

like with Petraeus' strategy (of which "the Surge" is only the first part).

I like the first part, it's the second part I wonder about:

"[The Iraqi benchmarks are to] achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province."

and also,

"confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through,"

That is what the surge is supposed to enable. Is it working? Anyone care to comment on the political situation in Iraq and their commitment to these goals (distributed oil revenue, curbing Shiite militias, eased restrictions on Baathists, Iraqi control of all 18 provinces by November)?

Ahhhhh! The genius right has done it again.

Here we have some small, temporary improvements militarily and the warmongers are declaring victory in this whole fiasco. We have exalted these kinds of victories before, ask Petraeus, only to see the bottom fall out and the situation revert to mayhem once again.

Get real guys. Let us hope the "surge" improvements have at least some lasting effect. Given the history of this fiasco the odds don't favor it. As the military enjoys what may be only temporary successes the government is disintegrating and ultimate SUCCESS depends on a functioning government.

If Las Vegas was callous enough to run book on the war, how many of you are willing to bet the farm on victory?

As to the Dems or Reps or any politician beginning to acknowledge some success; "I'm shocked that there is gambling going on in here".

"If Las Vegas was callous enough to run book on the war, how many of you are willing to bet the farm on victory?"

It depends. If a Dem (Hillary of course) takes the Whitehouse next year, then I would bet on a terrorist victory. Otherwise, I would bet on the US.

In re: Sen. Durbin. He did not, of course, compare our troops to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. He described certain interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo and said they reminded him of techniques used by those insidious, evil regimes.

As it turns out, he was correct. Our government -- your government -- has intentionally adopted interrogation techniques used by Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, and others... including the same techniques (sleep deprivation, waterboarding) that we have called torture when used by other regimes, including the North Vietnamese, when they used them against our own troops. It is detailed here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer

I would invite you all to read that article and respond to the facts reported therein rather than simply attacking me or Senator Durbin. You may argue that our governments actions are justified, that torturing someone is different when we do it, etc. but I don't think you can argue that it hasn't happened.

Thanks.

Yagur:

Good thinking. Excellent post. I didn't address the issue in my post simply because I felt the reference was so fatuous that to respond would be akin to whistling in the wind.