Captain's Quarters -

This weekend Tim Russert interviewed Tom Friedman. Friedman made the point that Pelosi was doing General Petraeus a HUGE favor because he can now look the Iraqis in the eye and say "That Pelosi is crazy but she has a lot of Americans with her, and now we're running out of time. So let's get this done."

Reid is doing the Senate version of the same thing.

Demand-then ignore-National Intelligence Estimates that say, don't leave Iraq too soon
Demand-then ignore-classified briefings from all 17 intel agencies on Iraq
Ignore Daily Intelligence briefings (Pres and VP get them 2-3 times a day, surely the Speaker can too)
Ignore classified 1:1 meeting with Gen Petraeus and meet with Moveon.org instead
Demand troops in Iraq focus on training ISF even though they have been for 4yrs
Demand Special Forces in Iraq focus on AQ in Iraq even though they have been for 4yrs
Demand troops in Iraq focus on logistics and support for ISF even though they have been for 4yrs
Demand combat troops be pulled from Iraq to cut casualties even though most casualties come from logistics
Ignore that no serious CIA investigation was done before or after the war regarding Regime ties to Al Queda, and then claim the war in Iraq is not part of war on terror
Ignore the Al Queda's claims that 4000 fighters have been killed in Iraq, and then claim the war in Iraq is not part of war on terror
Ignore CENTCOM reports that 7000 Al Queda have been killed in Iraq since 10/04, and then claim the war in Iraq is not part of war on terror
Ignore that Osama Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and every major Islamic terrorist leader has proclaimed Iraq as the central front in the war on terror, and then claim the war in Iraq is not part of war on terror
Demand evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, and when Iranian intel agents are captured, ignore it
Demand evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, and when Iranian "diplomats" are revealed as aiding insurgents-ignore it
Demand evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, and when shown the Iranian 50cal sniper rifles that have been captured-ignore it
Demand evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, and when shown the special armor-piercing bombs provided to insurgents by Iran-ignore it
Demand evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, and when shown names and faces of 200+ Americans killed by Iranians in Iraq-ignore it
Demand that troops get better body armor, up-armored HUMMVs, and more, then seek to cut funding to give troops better body armor, up-armored HUMMVs and more.

Denial ain't a river in Egypt. It's the DNC's nickname for the Potomac
Knowledge is power, but deliberate ignorance is apparently political power
-Scott

He will destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation if he does so.

For another generation, that is. McGovern & Carter blew it for my generation already, even if most of my generation have no clue who McGovern was and only hazy memories of Captain Peanut.

So why do the five mafia families who own Harry Reid, have such an interest in this surrender bill?

Could it be, the Mafia is taking money from the terrorists, to direct Harry to surrender ASAP?

Don't underestimate the corruption of the criminal Harry "Judas" Reid. He's getting more than five pieces of silver, to sell out his country.

The Captain's analysis assumes that Bush and the Republicans will defend themselves while holding the MSM and their Democrat pets accountable for their zany Iraq policies. Unfortunately for the country, the next time that happens will also be the first. While the Democrat Party may be known as the Insane Party, the GOP has a well-earned reputation as the Stupid Party (see Hagel, Specter, Snowe, Warner, Collins, etc.).

As the Chinese like to curse: interesting times.

Reid may reflect which party really has more to lose at this point.

The Democrats may very soon split between their realists (e.g. Blue Dogs) and their ideological purists on the far left.

Reid is trapped because the Dems in power now, and the public expects that if you are in power, you will do something about it.

It may be the case that whichever party succeeds in firing up the other's extreme base will win. Why? Because the bases of both parties spook the moderate middle, and when things suck and the public is unhappy, the moderates decide the election.

Proof: Barak is further to the right at this point than Reid is, even though Dem primaries are still a long ways off. He is more worried about provoking the public than the base of his own party.

Interesting times, indeed.

Can we call it treason yet?

Well if the 43 Admin thinks (duh oxymoron) that they can spin what has happened and what will continue to happen in the sandbox these dudes are just out of touch with reality. 43 is lying preppie whose departure in Jan 09 is eagerly awaited by most Americans and no amount of spin from the Captain will change this very simple fact. But if you want to live in denial well I guess to each his own.

Harry doesn't face too much of a problem even if Joe L. changes parties. Harry's canny enough to have anticipated Joe's reaction and after the vote counts last week, I think Harry has proven that at least two supposedly Republican Senators' votes can be bought. With enough carrots, I don't think Harry will have to beat anyone to change to his side. What do you want to bet that Hagel's "announcement" wasn't for the presidency run? I'll bet he was asked to wait until they could showboat for greater effect - after all they are the party of Hollywood.
Joe will walk and then two "Republicans" will walk to the other side. Count on it.

Here's a photo of the safest woman in the world, right now: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_pelosi_5

That's right - Dingbat of the House, NancyGirl Pelosi.

Hope she packed plenty of diamond studded kneepads for her trip. Might wear out the first five or six pairs.

Maybe one of our Democrat trolls can give me one reason why this trip is a good thing.

Is this an Iraq war application of Godwin's Law, in that, Harry Reid has stepped up the rhetoric to the point that he's lost the argument by demonstrating that, no, they don't really "support the troops?"

"He will destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation if he does so.

For another generation, that is. McGovern & Carter blew it for my generation already, even if most of my generation have no clue who McGovern was and only hazy memories of Captain Peanut."

Clinton(s), Carter, Murtha, Webb... guys, it's the SAME generation.

This country will not have a chance until the last baby boomer is dead and buried.

"It might also lose Reid his majority. Joe Lieberman has spent the last two months warning that his loyalty to the Democrats would end with a forced surrender in Iraq. Reid might believe he could get a Republican to cross the aisle to balance it out, but it's unlikely that Reid could get one to do so in support of a surrender bill."

I dunno, Cap'n ... I'm sure that Gordon Smith (whom I'm disgusted to say represents my state of Oregon) is one RINO that Reid can count on to help him raise the white flag.

Good call on Lieberman, though - yours is the first blog I've seen to note the definite possibility that a donkey party "unconditional surrender" bill would be the last straw for him.

This weekend Tim Russert interviewed Tom Friedman. Friedman made the point that Pelosi was doing General Petraeus a HUGE favor because he can now look the Iraqis in the eye and say "That Pelosi is crazy but she has a lot of Americans with her, and now we're running out of time. So let's get this done."

Reid is doing the Senate version of the same thing.

He will destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation if he does so.

Will? He has. He did that with the BACKSTAB: Bleed America's Courageous Kids and Surrender to Terrorists abroad Bill.

When Lieberman jumps ship, the Democrats are finished as a political party. The GOP will have control of the Senate before the end of the year, this is a 100% certainty.

This morning the President called Harry Reid's bluff. He has no intention of backing down. Reid has fatally overplayed his hand and the 2008 ads will be filled with how the Dhimmicrats surrendered to AQ in Iraq. They are done. The Moveon.org wing of the party has destroyed it, and the splinter groups that form from the rotting, corrupt corpse will never amount to anything more than a localized amusement. The GOP will be running this country for another 30 years.

When political scientists look back at when the Democratic Party went the way of the Whigs, March 2007 will be the tipping point.

Do you people even remember the run-up to the last election? The democrats got elected by promising pre-emptive surrender and higher taxes, remember?

They are making good on the pre-emptive surrender promise, and that makes you think they'll get harmed by it somehow? What is the logic behind that assertion?

No matter what the democrats do, no matter how it will harm our country, you folks need to get used to the idea that NO ONE CARES. Even if they did care, the MSM has proven to be very proficient at changing such care into abject apathy. They've done it too many times over the last 6 years for you folks to be able to credibly ignore it anymore.

I submit that it don't matter if this war turns out well, even if it becomes clear that we've already won it, that the surge worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and the evidence is so overwhelming that only a blind person could deny it. The democrats and the MSM will either continue to call it a loss (and convince most Americans it was) or claim the victory for themselves (and convince mosts Americans it is). And there ain't a damn thing any of us can do to change that reality (fantasy?).

If the Democrats really hold off funding for the troops in the field, I would like to see a fund-raiser on TV for "SupportaSoldier":
********
The Ad shows the image of a Revolutionary soldier in the cold of Valley Forge with a voice over saying:

"In the depths of the Revolutionary War when Congress failed to provide for the Continental Army, local citizens brought foodstuffs and cloth to help sustain the heroic army. Now Congress has again failed to supply an American army engaged on the field of battle and the time has come once again for citizens to step forward and support a soldier.

For just $3 per day you can feed an American Hero. For just $100 you can refuel an armored vehicle so that our troops can manuever and move against the enemy rather than be a sitting duck because they are out of fuel.

Be an American Hero yourself step up and give generously to "Support a Sodier" . . And tell your congressman that they should stop letting our Soldiers down."

The Revolutionary soldier then turns and says

"Thanks for being a part of the Freedom Team"
*********
How long do you think the Democrats will want ads like that running?

"Pelosi draped a scarf over her head as she entered the historic mosque" and stopped at a tomb inside the mosque said to contain the head of St. John the Baptist."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_pelosi_12

Good to see Pelosi has already donned her hibab. She'll make a good little Dhimmi.

If I were a Democrat, I'd take it one step further and wear a bag over my head.

The word "Democrat" should be held in the same disdain as "arsonist", "child molestor" and "goat violator". How anyone can count themselves amongst such a vile group of people, is beyond me.

From where I sit, Harry Reid looks no different than he looked "before."

In other words? With all the headlines, he's still unpopular.

And, with all the headlines, pelosi can't drive out of the rut she is in, either.

Unless you think pelosi is have a better set of headlines than the 15 hostages. Where America is learning that it's the FEMALE who was in charge of 14 men, sans testicles.

Ralph Peters, in Today's New York Post, has a great piece. Worth reading. So here it is:

New York Post

WHERE'S WINSTON?

By RALPH PETERS

April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.

Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.

You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something.

And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.

What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?

The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!

Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as "hostages" than they are with the Iranians.

Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and Marines? Package tourists?

Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice.

I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend. While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming "Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.

The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors (praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country. Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union Jack are soccer hooligans.

Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.

Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better. But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.

Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose for Tehran?

The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret Thatcher the last real man in Britain?

The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30 deeper inland the next day.

By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)

Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.

At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.

John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

PS: BUT THAT'S OKAY. Bush will just sit on his hands. Because? He's not interested in Maliki. The dogs he put into this iraqi race? The House of Saud's sunni's ... And, they got a licking!

Are we learning much?

Well, "sitting on our hands" is not a bad alternative. Since its up to the arabs to fight. And, they both do that well. And, stink at it.

While, I just laugh. Looks like pelosi's trip to syria hit some headwinds, huh? CAROL

I'd rather be dead than be an Iranian hostage. Even if they make it out alive, they will live forever in disgrace.

I surely hope our Sailors and Marines have orders to fight to the death if the Iranians try to capture them, but I have my doubts these days.

At what point will our gutless western politicians allow us to fight the Iranian snakes? When the Iranians are slitting throats on the beaches of New Jersey? Or do we have to wait until they hit the Hamptons?

Despite all the whining from the right about Democrats, no one other than the Republicans and George Bush have lost the war in Iraq through their gross incompetence.

At least this is the opinion of most neocons, and more recently, Henry Kissinger who said that victory in Iraq is no longer possible:
http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20070402

I don't know what's worse- the right wingers who cheerled Bush while the blunders in Iraq mounted- or the left wingers who demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American forces. Both sides are a farce.

You can whine about Democrats all you want, but that party has had nothing to do with the disaster that continues to unfold. And it's the American people, not simply Democrats, who want to get out of Iraq. The voice of the people must be heard- this is a democracy, not Iran.

"You can whine about Democrats all you want, but that party has had nothing to do with the disaster that continues to unfold."

A situation the Democrats caused and continue to aid and abet.

And your argument is both childish and ignorant. We cannot win wars that individuals who are elected to the highest elected body in the nation, don't see as "their war".

What, are Democrats, Teamsters? They don't see Iraq as "their job? " I don't see paying my share of the salaries of utterly worthless, no-load Democrats "my job", either, but I do it, because I'm adult. Apparently, Democrats are spoiled, addled children.

When our military is sent overseas into a war, it's EVERYONE in Congress' job. That they don't see it that way, just reveals what irresponsible, unworthy juvenile delinquents Democrats are. And that any thinking adult is stupid enough to accept such a lame excuse like "not my job" is just astonishing.

And look, if the worthless idiots on the Democrat side of the aisle, just played the role of potted plants, things would have worked out better. I would wish for better, but Democrats are elected to dole out government cheese and to steal money with both hands, not act as responsible legislators.

But Democrats have tacitly aided and abetted our enemies from day one. Democrats are truly the worst and the dimmest.

Anyone who thinks we can win this war with one side actively working against success is completely delusional.

MajO: "...before you are ready, to fight one of the most pernicious enemies in the world today."

They are fighting each other. That -is- a political solution that can be solved relatively quickly, and only by the Iraqis.

Meanwhile there's no talk at all about the five permanent military bases where the troops will 'retreat' to and still be authorized to fight from 'to support and train the Iraqi army' per the proposed legislation.

This is political theater on a grand scale, and I suspect all the players on our side, from both parties, know their lines pretty well.

Better a “535 member committee” than such a flawed Commander in Chief. Still cannot understand the irrational attitude in still wanting to support an individual that has being so constently wrong? Must be the “Party allegiance for ever” syndrome.

"gross incompetence"
"constently wrong"

Where do you people get off on making claims like that? As far as I can tell, the only backing you have for that is that other people, who also have more wishful thinking than knowlage, have siad it. Goebbels would be so proud.

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence of real incompitance. In fact, I've been quite suprized at the level of compitance this administration has shown. The only field where there appear to be break-downs of compitance is politics.

Oh, and be careful with that "Party allegiance.." thing. You might be projecting.

Dirty, rotten Copperhead 'peace' Democrats never change. They called the President a flawed, incompetent ape, actively waged war against those who fought to abolish tyranny and slavery, encouraged the soldiers to abandon the fight, and often
met with the enemy of freedom.

Had they succeeded with their vile and vicious attacks against the administration blacks would still be slaves.

Some things never change wham1000, like your party of 'peace' democrats; the party of dirty rotten Copperheads.

Wham1000 I can't understand how you can call yourself an American.

Does Bush always have it wrong? Saddam was an evil dictator and as long as he ruled Iraq there was no hope for a better future for those people. I am ashamed today to hear people say Iraq was better off with the Butcher of Baghdad than they are with an elected government. Pathetic. When did Democrats become cheerleaders for mass murdering antiAmerican dicatators? In fact Reid voted for this war, so it was not just Bush's decision anyway.

In fact I don't care if they think it is their job or not they voted for the war. There are Democrats in office right now who are trying their best to end all of hopes of success in Iraq who strongly supported Clinton in 1998 when he brought military action against Saddam Hussein and called for his removal from office. I can even remember Zinni making sure the troops in Kuwait got their anti anthrax shots for fear that Saddam would attack them with chemical or biological weapons.

Now they are bored and tired and it is not "their war".Meanwhile the young men and women who are charged with fighting this war are placed in more jeopardy by the game playing politicians who would rather see them lose than win.

Well according to polls most Americans even now do not support cutting funding for troops. It will not be popular.

Especially when they see the United States military retreat from the field and the terrorists celebrating in the streets as they kick off the Iraqi genocide/humanitarian disaster.

No, the Democrats will respond to this shameful awful turn of events by demanding that Bush "do something" about Darfur. The morons.

The Democrats seem to have done a turn-around even since their recent confirmation of General Petraus, who made his strategy for a surge clear. One thing they have done by such a bold challenge to Bush and the military is to take the focus completely off the Diane Feinstein corruption issue.

I believe the Democrats won majorities largely on the basis of dissatisfaction with Republicans who acted like Democrats in terms of spending, deal-making and corruption. Mistakes in prosecution of the war seemed to flow together with issues of congressional irresponsibility in fueling a general sense of frustration with Republicans. Irresponsibility, pork and deal-making are now even more serious issues than when Republicans had the majorities. Remember all those Democrat ads about the "Culture of Corruption"? They need to take the focus off their own corruption issues RIGHT NOW.

Some polls suggest that the public's views on Iraq make much more sense than the Democratic leadership's juvenile position. Thus Obama's recent statement. By repeating over and over again that the public wants America out of Iraq more than anything else, congressional Democratic leaders intend to move sentiment in that direction and to make that the issue over which people fight.

Why don't the Democrats ever even mention the success of the Kurds in Iraq in building a functioning society while under American and British protection? How does the Kurdish success fit into the "abandon Iraq" model? Wouldn't they seem more serious and intelligent if they addressed issues like these?

Cap'n Ed wrote:

Let Reid try to declare surrender from Capitol Hill. He will destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation if he does so. This is one game of chicken where discretion would be the better part of valor.

I keep reading this kind of analysis, and I must say that I completely disagree. Recall the the dems played the same game in Vietnam that they're playing now, and they maintained a majority in the House for twenty more years, had a majority in the Senate for much of that time, and had the White House for part of it. The American people never made a solid connection between the Killing Fields and the neo-Copperheads of the '70s, and there's no reason to think that they'll make a similar connection once the Benedict Arnold Party arranges our defeat and humiliation in Iraq.

The reason they can get away with this, of course, is the MSM. While the MSM isn't as all-powerful as it used to be, it still has a tremendous ability to shape peoples' perceptions by amplifying some data and hiding or downplaying others. For example, I heard an ABC radio news story this afternoon about the president's threatened veto and Reid's threat to pull funding in response. Sound bite from both men... followed by a bite from some rep from a "military families" organization lamenting long / freqent deployments (one wonders how Billy Yank or GI Joe would have felt about "lengthy deployments" as he spent his second or third year "deployed" in combat).

The MSM has done a great job painting Iraq as an unmitigated disaster, and I feel that they'd have little trouble ignoring any unpleasantness (read: genocide) in Iraq, or blaming it on Bush if they couldn't outright ignore it.

Remember: for the left, this war isn't about us vs. the terrorists: it's about them vs. Bush. If a few million Iraqis have to die to disgrace him... Well, it's a price they'll gladly pay.

And speaking of Pelosi, why isn't she being immediately impeached under the Logan Act for visiting Syria?

"Per the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Does the law apply here? Let’s break it down:

*Any citizen of the United States
o Nancy Pelosi is certainly a citizen of the United States.

*without authority of the United States,
o President Bush did not authorize Nancy Pelosi’s trip and has indicated this trip will be “counterproductive”

*directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States,
o Nancy Pelosi has stated her intent to influence Syria, thereby crossing the line and acting outside her authority, portraying herself in a role of speaking on behalf of the United States.

Folks, to me this is a clear violation of the Logan Act. The Justice Department needs to investigate this matter immediately and make an example of Speaker Pelosi. We need to stop allowing members of Congress to behave as if the Executive Branch moved down the road after the mid-term election. Nancy Pelosi is not only acting well outside the scope of her authority, she is breaking the law."

Lightwave, do you think it's just a coincidence the D's went after the leader of said Justice Department right before this trip started?

As far as I can tell, the only backing you have for that is that other people, who also have more wishful thinking than knowlage, have siad it. Goebbels would be so proud.

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence of real incompitance

If you read those things called books you might have a different perspective and even learn how to spell. Cobra II and State of Denial are tragedies that clearly portray the magnitude of failure that has occurred.

Many of the neocons who originally supported Bush and the invasion, including Adelman and Pearl has pointed to the gross ineptitude of this war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1939472,00.html

If you think that this war has been managed effictively, you live in a world of your own.

I'll never support that fiasco Bush heaved on this country. If people want to call me traitor,feel free, I guess THE SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ IN A YEAR are traitors too. The 30% that want to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war must be the superpatriots. You people do live in a state of denial. Reed's not backing down, thats just wishful thinking. This isn't a monarchy, Bush might think it is. Democracy means majority rules, basic civics. Let the decider veto the bill, call the dems all the names you want. It just shows how brainwashed and hateful the neo-nuts are. As Bushy once said, "BRING IT ON.

Saw a headline on my cel phone news (which is unfortunately CNN) that said it all "Pelosi Welcomed in Syria". Of course she was. :) I don't know what it's going to take to make people pay attention to what is going on here. The Republicans were punished for acting like Democrats with spending and not winning the war? So the Dems want to raise taxes and surrender? What's with this? Why aren't they being punished? And why isn't there a lot more attention being given to the Supreme Court ruling on giving the EPA more power on carbon emissions? This is a huge disaster waiting to happen...does anyone remember the stagnant 70s? Just wait till the court orders ruin the economy and people suddenly wonder why everything is SO expensive....The earlier comment that we won't be safe til the last boomer is in the ground is truer than true...when will the damned hippies finally go away? They have more lives than Jason in the horror movies. It's so easy to truly dislike the current Republicans for losing all the ground that the Reagan years won in defeating failing, disastrous 40 year old lefty hippie ideology.

Hey, CD, bayam, et al - Remember this? I do and you better believe our soldiers do. They'll remember the BACKSTAB also.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

bayrum sez:

"Personally, I've yet to see any evidence of real incompitance

If you read those things called books you might have a different perspective and even learn how to spell."

LOL! Get a dictionary and turn to the "I" section.

bayam:

Of ocurse you will never support it. After all, the United States enforced United nations force resolutions and eneded the reign of a mass murdering dictator who not only slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.....he violated a legitimate cease fire and tried to kill a president of the United States. Why would you support going after a guy like that? In fact given the left's track record of sucking up to everyone from Joe Stalin to the Khmer Rouge to Fidel Castro and so on...I would imagine he is your kind of guy.

DEl:

What books would those be?

I don't think the Bush administration has been incompetent either, no more so than the Blanco/Nagin duet the Democrats had going in LA. The sad thing about Katrina is that many people did their jobs very well...such as the coast guard..but they will never get the credit they deserve because some of it might rub off on the wrong people. Got to keep that narrative going.

I remember when the war started and Ted Kennedy said he feared we would lose thousands of troops before we ever got to Baghdad because Saddam would use his weapons of mass destruction on them. Well did we? That shows you what Kennedy knows.

In fact the United States has made it possible for the Iraqis to create a new government and the Democrats have no respect for that, instead they complain about competence or lack thereof while they do everything they can to sabotage the Iraqis and the Bush administration.

Well when have they ever shown competence?

What is their great claim to fame in that department?

Was Berger being competent when he crammed classified documents in his pants?

Was Clinton being competent when he spent more his second term chasing women around the Oval office than he did dealing with the likes of AlQaida or Saddam? Just imagine how different history might have been if he had not kicked that can down the road.

Was the Congress being competent when it said yes we will- no we won't -yes we will- no we won't -fund the troops? Shumer can scream his head off about competence, but people like him also have a responsiblity of oversight for VA hospitals, was he competent in that oversight?

The only thing the Democrats have shown any real competence at is bitching, moaning, whining and backstabbing. Actually doing things, fixing things, accomplishing things and making things better are not high on their lists of things they do well.

bayam-
Nice little ad hominem attack there. I would be surprised, actually, if you have read as many books as I have. Given that I don't take the time to cut and past from a word prossesor, I guess I'll just have to live will snide remarks about my spelling.

Given that the Democrats have nearly all gone from suportive to antagonistic on Iraq, it is hardly surprising that you can find a "neo-con" who as done the same. And, if a book is a "tragedy," that is hardly an endorsment of its accuracy.

But, let me put it another way. From what I have seen, Bush has been very hands off in military matters, other than setting the goals and providing suport. That is about the most compitant thing a CIC can do. So, any of your complaints of incompitance fall on the military leaders and planners. I'm saying I don't see a real case of "your so stupid, any compitant person could have done better," and I don't see really solid cases of "In hindsight, we could have done better." At least, not with reguard to the military. With the press, however, I think that there is a good case that Iraq would have been better off in a forseable way if the press had made better disitions on what stories to run, and how to run them.