Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
Democrats Can't Handle the Good News
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Very good news is coming out of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this hasnt caused a change of heart among the Democratic leadership. It hasn't even given them pause. One wonders if they are capable of hearing such news anymore.

The Times Online reports that Al Qaeda is facing rebellion from within its ranks. Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a persons face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of Al Qaeda are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood.

Some of these junior Al Qaeda members are said to be repulsed by the gratuitous, barbaric violence. One said, I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done.

The good news doesn't stop here. Al Qaeda is not only facing internal dissension, but evidence is also emerging that other ethnic forces formerly friendly to Al Qaeda are changing their tune. Iraqi locals are denying Al Qaeda the sanctuary they need to operate. Lt. Col Stephen Michael, commander of a 700-troop battalion in Doura, says, Al Qaedas days are numbered, and right now he is scrambling.

This news, says the Times, comes out of Doura. But it is part of a wider trend that has started in other Al Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

Along the same lines, The Washington Times reports that U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders in Taji, Iraq, to join forces against Al Qaeda and other extremists, which represents an extension of a policy already implemented in Anbar province that has transformed the security situation there.

This isn't some flimsy handshake deal. Tribal leaders agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from Sunni and Shiite extremists. It's also significant that tribal forces approached U.S. forces to initiate this agreement.

Al Qaedas inhumanity is not the only reason things are beginning to change in Iraq. The reports clearly indicate that the increased number of U.S. forces in Doura has made the locals feel it's less dangerous for them to turn toward us. These reports are direct confirmation that the surge strategy is working.

The Washington Times also reports -- surely much to the chagrin of war naysayers who have gloated that we have been greeted not as liberators but occupiers -- that U.S. soldiers walking through Sunni villages have been greeted warmly, with locals shaking the soldiers' hands and kissing their cheeks. Just a month ago, according to Sgt. Richard Fisk, every single one of these people was shooting at us.

Has any of this good news coming out of Iraq prompted Democrats to rethink their opposition to victory?

A brief survey of recent headlines reveals quite the opposite. Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would press forward on legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, despite the Democrat's failed efforts last week to pass such a bill. He also said Republicans who voted against withdrawal of our troops were engaged in partisan gamesmanship. If that isn't a textbook case of psychological projection, Ive never seen one.

Meanwhile, Senator Russ Feingold told NBCs Tim Russert that he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq War and his assault on the Constitution. While Reid didn't readily warm to the idea of a censure, he did say that the president already has the mark of the American people that hes the worst president weve ever had. Hows that for rising above partisanship and supporting your commander in chief during wartime?

Elsewhere, that great patriot from San Francisco, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided President Bushs call for congressional Democrats to rise above partisanship. Like Reid, Pelosi said the American people have lost faith in Bush and she will continue to cause Congress to vote to end this war every chance she gets.

Speaking of partisanship, news reports around the web demonstrate that while the Bush administration and our armed forces are doing everything they can to accomplish serious, non-partisan business in Iraq in furtherance of the nonpartisan goal of promoting our national security, Democratic leaders are bogging down the administration in frivolous investigations over matters that aren't even arguably illegal.

In other news, Democratic presidential candidates are traveling the country trying to outdo each other in the nonpartisan activity of pandering to illegal immigrants for their votes (Obama has gone so far as to court La Raza). Other party leaders are trying to develop strategies to unburden the party of its image as the party of abortion. Of course, they're not doing anything to unburden themselves of the party's moral failure on it.

That concludes our report.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Buyers' Remorse?
Maybe the problem all along has been that the Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, have never had the opportunity to experience Sharia theocracy first-hand in all its barbarity. Once al Qaeda dominated certain areas, which some people wrote off as lost, the Sunnis realized they didn't want that after all. Maybe this will finally turn those people against Islamic theocracy and toward liberal, Western-style democracy. Thank God there are still enough Republicans with the backbones to give Petraeus's new strategy a chance to succeed.

The MSM and the Democrats know we're on the verge of victory. That's why their cries of defeatism are growing even louder and shriller. They cannot allow the US to hand al Qaeda a defeat and leave Iraq with honor. They need to create another Vietnam to further weaken their own country and make it ripe for full-blown socialism and One World Government. The only thing standing in their way is a strong America that is willing to defend its interests.

----

If the American people really want us to pull out now, then why don't the Democrats and their weak-willed Republican collaborators defund the war now? Certainly they could trumpet the withdrawal in 2008 and make enormous gains in Congress and the White House, right? Wait, maybe we've been fed a bunch of BS! Maybe the Democrats know that many people who express to pollsters a lack of support for the war are frustrated that we aren't fighting it hard enough, not that we're fighting it at all. Maybe the Dems fear the inevitable images of genocide, al Qaeda victory parties, and even more Iranian meddling in Iraq, that would result from our precipitous - or timetabled - withdrawal. Maybe they're just parroting their talking points in a desperate effort to demoralize as many people as possible and create an image of war-weariness, which they expect to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

you know
its possible to be political in supporting or dennouncing the war that most traditional conservatives opposed as nation building.

if america succeeds, i will be glad i was wromg. we as a nation went when people we elected voted to go. that seals the issue for me.

but grasping at the minor successes of a bad overall idea is the same as dems denouncing the war simply to exploit our endangered soldiers for their own power. we went, we need a good outcome, the less pontificated about it the better. let the men do their jobs and pray for them because they bit off a big hard to swallow chunk that they are choking all. the dems did not cause the military's problems, they just make them worse and more dangerous. lets not do the same thing and rejoice at minor victories when in truth the whole enchilada is a cluster****.

i live in latin america, and here it is clear that the usa's adventure in democracy building is having an opposite effect emboldening the forces of forced collectives and walled markets. it is true we have damaged america more than these victories will help. it is also true that many in the usa have a myoptic vision that the rest of the world is primitive and irrelevent.

nothing could be further from the truth. almost all the usa's growth in the first 7 years of this century has been international. the new anti immigration, anti free trade, pro isolationist stances of many will do great harm to the economy. microsoft has left the usa for canada to do research solely because of archaic immigration laws and their stricter enforcement post 9/11. simply put this all has not been in our self interest yet the red blood wing of the right thinks we need to go further down this path. we need a good way to end iraq. we need better ways to deal with the world. and we need a heck of a lot more multi lingual americans. the future is international and in that we are getting failing grades. from iraq to the americas.


One disturbing thing...
...about the good news -- and it IS good news; I don't dispute that -- is the persistence of Iraqis' "tribal" loyalties, however defined, as superior to national loyalty.

Tribalism has been the great enemy of peace and civilization in Africa. It elevates traditional hostilities and vendettas above conceptions of civic pride and order. Before our entry into Iraq, I would not have guessed it to be so important there. If it's as important as it seems, I hope our people are doing whatever is possible to replace it with a wider Iraqi patriotism. I fear that if that's not done, it will thwart our attempts to form the various factions into a nation that can sustain itself against the pressures from outside.

Gutless Dumbocrats
Lestat writes:

"If the American people really want us to pull out now, then why don't the Democrats and their weak-willed Republican collaborators defund the war now? Certainly they could trumpet the withdrawal in 2008 and make enormous gains in Congress and the White House, right?"

Damned right. if these a**holes had ANY balls, they would simply cut off funding right now. Then they could go out onto the campaign trail and tell all their moonbat left wing wacko Bush haters how they courageously stood up BUSH the evil doer!!

Hal
I've skimmed over your crap for days, now, and I am firmly convinced you should be the other poster child "Ostrich Boy" You have your head inthe sand if you truly believe AQ is a minor piece of the puzzle or that our military operates on a "WAM" priciple. Go to Michael Yon and read about the many succeses you don't hear in the media...go to Blackfive.net, or Badger6. Get educated. You suffer from the Screaming Monkey Syndrome and it's getting old.

Military.com Poll: War Support Waning

Do you think this is why Ron Paul is leading all sides on donations from the military?

Military.Com-Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because “we’re wasting lives and resources there.”

A similar number of participants, however, felt that U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, with 41 percent of respondents concluding that America should fight “until the insurgency is totally defeated.”

The online poll, conducted over three days starting July 10, was open to all Military.com readers. (Military.com membership was not a requirement to participate.)

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/militarycom-poll-war-support-waning

The enemy of my enemy is my friend
The Dems have assigned "ownership" of the war to Bush, who they see as the Great Satan(sound familiar?).This view is kind of like looking through the wrong end of a telescope, their focus on discrediting Bush is so intense they reflexively oppose anything he does without regard to whether or not it's in the intrerest of the country. In fact, they behave as if defeating Bush is to be done at all cost, up to and including sacrificing the USA.

So good
in fact that they need more troops to bring in the beer for the party!

Yup, attacks and deaths mean nothing, increased numbers of troops mean nothing, and the massive ignorance of cons about the cultural situation in the Middle East means nothing either!

It is good because they say it is! So what's the $250 miilion a month for then? So good in fact that our presence isn't even needed there...oh wait....

The economy is great, things in Iraq are great, (must be McCain style), America is or was meant to be a Christian nation and christianity is under attack, the same old stuff six years later.

No wonder you folk are 29%ers.

Is it time to invade Iran yet?

John Konop
That is why the President is CIC, and not the people. The great majority of the people only know the claptrap fed to them by the MSM, which is thoroughly documented to be defeatist. To deny that fact is to deny reality. God, I'm glad you defeatist a--holes weren't out in such force in WW2.

Gonzo or Bozo?
That's all right, you ladies leave the fighting to the menfolk and a few brave women. If y'all had simply STFU in the beginning, this battle would probably be over by now, and we could be off to Iran.

89% ?
Is that the new percentage of people thinking Congress is doing a worse job than Bush? Remember , their approval ratings are lower than his.

The Liberals Change the Subject
Just weeks ago, and in unison, the Libs screamed that Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Facts got in the way as many reminded them that Al Zarqawia was an Al Qaida operative, and the leader of Al Qaida in Iraq went public many times broadcasting himself as an Al Qaida Leader.

Then the Libs screamed, "The US invasion of Iraq attracted Al Qaida terror groups to Iraq". This has about as much logic as blaming the Japanese invasion of the Philipines and Wake Island on FDR's declaration of War.

The Libs then changed the subject again by screaming, "We took our eyes off the prize. We should be in Afganistan where the real enemy is. We should invade Pakistan and go after Bin Laden". This, of course ignores that the US and NATO already have 60,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. The Libs who complained that we invaded a poor soverign nation like Iraq, now wished for us to invade an Ally.

The Libs will always change the subject. In 2003 they complained that we cannot "force" Democracy on the backward arab people; now they complain that the Iraqi are not legislating fast enough. When Bush pointed out that 70% of Iraq was peaceful, they pointed at the violent Anbar Province. Now that Anbar had been pacified, they scream that there are onyl 5,000 active Al Qaida terrorists anyway (Of course, 19 Al Qaida terrorists brought New York and Washington DC to its knees in 2 hours).

Al Qaida in Iraq will be finished by Christmas. By June most of our soldiers will be on the way home, and the Libs will be changing the subject again.

One gets the impression that the Libs are angry at Al Qaida right about now. They are angry not because Al Qaida is killing US servicemen, but because they are losing.




After the Surge
Ironic how noone wants to talk about what happens after the surge.

Arming Sunni's and the tribes to defeat Al Queida will give control over Iraq back to the Sects in the areas affected. However, that does not lead to a political solution or a united country. That simply reinforces the sects in a country that is systematically segregating into three basic states. With 4 million already having either left the country or moved to areas of their own sects, and another 60,000 moving every month, the handwriting is already on the wall.

The Shia's are not going to give up control of their decision to have a clerical state, toss out the Koran as the basis for civil law, or rewrite the constitution to establish a secular state. Never forget that their political parties are religious parties whose legitimacy rests on the support of Sistani and the Shia clerics - who, like the clerics in Iran, have the final say. At the same time, Talabani and the Kurds have repeatedly stated that they will never permit the Shia's or Sunni's to have any control over their internal affairs for at least 10 years - or until they can trust them - however long that takes. The most we can hope for is a deal to share oil, and some form of a federation which will convince the Sunni's to stand down from a long term civil war.

Which is what the surge is about.

We also know that our generals are telling us that it will now take another two years before we can turn security over to the Iraqi's.

Maybe.

At that point, we'll have been in Iraq for 6 and 1/2 years.

The three sects will ally themselves with their natural partners in the middle east. The Shia's with the Irani's and the Sunni's with the Syrians and Saudi's.

Two of these countries are not considered friendly to our interests.

So - will we be better off strategically or not? Will knocking down the rise of Al Queida in Iraq defang Al Queida, or will it still exist elsewhere as it did prior to 9/11 - given that the head of the movement sits in uncontrolled tribal areas in Pakistan - which we seem to have no means of attacking at this point.

Which is the point of this entire exercise.







Big Black Dog
I get the impression that the Democrats in Congress aren't looking forward to election day 2008. In the House, they picked up 26 seats in Red Districts in 2006. These 26 Dems ran as Conservatives. However, having Nancy Pelosi as your mouth piece is problematic.

My prediction: The House will revert back to the GOP in 2009. The GOP will pick up 25-40 seats. The Senate will remain in the Dems hands by either a 52-48 or 51-49 margin.

Eben
The Sunni and Shiites have no choice but to get along. Niether side wishes to keep the bloodbath going, and the Shiites especially do not want the Iranian Imans running thier Mosques.

Since Feb, Gen Peterous and Ambassador Crocker laid the facts down to these 2 groups. Syria could continue to send weapons to the Sunnis, and Iran can continue to arm the Shiites. Both Syria and Iran would expect a Quid Pro Quo in return. The Sunni Shieks, and the Shiite Mullahs instead agreed call off thier militias, and allow the US to finish off Al Qaida and the Sunni terrorists. The Shiites sent Al Sadr packing. He is now in hiding in Iran.

Without grass-roots support, no foreign insurgency can last. The average person in Iraq, whether Sunni or Shiite wishes to die for the Iranians or the Syrians or the Wannabists.

After the surge, the Sunni and Shiites will arrange a loose power sharing deal with the Kurds. It will a coalition of the willing. Already, Sunnis have allowed Shiites to run several communities in the Sunni Triangle where the Shiites have local majorities. Ditto for Baghdad, where Sunnis are running many neighborhoods.

BBD

Read General Giap's biography and then tell me the anti-war demonstrations did not help the NVA.

Insults are easy, like "it's not my fault you lost" or " everybody in Nam was a doper.

24 years??? The French had it in 1950, first US involvement was around 1961 compliments of JFK.

The Dems already have the majority, they just don't know where they want to go.




Yo Big Black Dog
Ah iss back!!
The only "yella busturds" that I am aware of are those who faked illness or injury to get a medical discharge, or fled to a foreign country to escape the draft. Why be a sucker as your soul-mate True American would say?

Hal D
If you are out here today, check yesterday's dialogue on Lambros. I sent you a link you may interest you.

GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ
Is driving the doom-and -gloom elietist Dems nuts!

They don't hate President Bush because of the war.

They hate the war because the president isn't a Democrat.

Dow hit 14,000, unemployment under 5% and congress's approval 14% LIFE IS GOOD!

Gonzo
Describes your brain on drugs perfectly.

True American
Thank you TA. At my age, I count my blessings every day that I can get up and smell the flowers. How about you? Do you count your blessings?
BTW!! I've got a very busy schedule today and my participation in any meaningful dialogue will be limited. Hang in 'er and keep us suckers on the ball.

Big Black Dog
Mr. Dog!! No!! Like you!! I didn't know that being a Korean Vet was being a "yella busturd" Thanks for enlightening me.
An ole Korean War Vet

BBD
It is obvious that all you know of VietNam is what you read on blogs and googl.

In 1971 the Viet Cong were hurting, the NVA qwas in Cambodia, and they were able to shoot a rocket or two if Nixon called off the B-52 strikes for a week.

B52 strikes=no rockets
No b52 strikes= rockets

HalO
neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...neocon ...

Is this the only word that you know ....? Oops, I did notice another of your favorites ....

chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...chickenhawk ...

Sir, I am pretty tired of reading your stupid, idiotic rants ...

Are you really Tehran Kim in drag? Please, get a life ....

Yo True American
You said:

"that god for that useful war."

What does that mean?

Sayanara (for the time being)

U.S. vs Terrorists
A simple question:

Which side do you want to win?

Yeah, gotta keep asking this question.

U.S. vs Terrorists
Hal and Pancho:

Neither one of you answered my question yesterday. I'll ask again(and again and again...) Who do you want to win, The U.S. or these terror types?

what Dick Cheney had said in 1992
Back in 1992, the Bush 41 Administration had faced some criticism over their decision to leave Saddam in power and not take him out during the Gulf War. Dick Cheney, who was SecDef under Bush 41, defended the decision this way:

“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home....
“Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”
-- Dick Cheney, SecDef, 1992

I would really like to know why Cheney was so sure a decapitated Iraq would be a mess in 1992, yet had no qualms about doing the same thing in 2003.

bbd
service South Viet Nam 1971- 1972
Air Cav pilot UH-1

On receiving end of rockets, knew exactly when Nixon was and wasn't bombing, Was aware of how badly war was messed up by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

D*** glad to have made it home.

Those are my credentials on commenting on RVN.

Six for '06
Here is a note to all of you Democrats and other liberals, and to arrogant a-hole Libertarians such as "True American", who think last November's election was a referendum on Iraq.

Rush Limbaugh addressed this very point on his show yesterday. Here is a small portion of what he said.

""Six for '06." Remember that? What were the six? Remember? National security, jobs and wages, energy independence, affordable health care, retirement security, and college access for all. Those were the things they were talking about as a party before last November's election."

So tell me, all you wise pacificists. What is there in any of the Democrats' "Six for '06" that has anything to do with retreating from Iraq? The answer, of course, is a big fat ZERO, which also sums up your collective contribution to national security.

The Democrats KNOW they don't have popular support for retreat. They know this because when they tried to pass a NON-BINDING resolution in the House they had to bribe their own party members with $28 billion in "pork" just to squeeze out a bare minimum majority of 218 votes.

You clowns are only fooling yourselves with this nonsense. The anti-war rant on this thread is just a predictable continuation of the Lambro thread from yesterday's Townhall. The anti-war crowd in this country FEARS victory in Iraq for what it will do to their political ambitions at home.

You are willing to repeat the "killing fields" genocide of Cambodia in order to soidify your political power in the US.

Despicable.

wiseone
Well said!

Lestat: Your buyers remorse theory has some truth to it.

thighmaster
until the republicans deal with the fact that this is a civil war between shia and sunni no progress will be made.

i watched meet the press sunday with mitchell the head of the nie and he stated there is war going on between sunni and shia, shia and shia, and sunni and sunni, with al-quida a small but potent force in the mix.

the iraqis will deal with al-aueda as has ben proven in al-anbar but the sunni shia strife is beyong our control.

wiseone
rush limbaugh as a source?lol

go ahead and listen only to the biased conservative media and see what happens in 08.

you can look at every exit poll which were extremely accurate in 06 and you find iraq and corruption were 1 and 2.

the american people by a vast majority support a timed withdrawl from iraq.

you guys set here and reassure each other that you are the only ones who know what is going on and the rest of us americans are stupid or duped.

well you are wrong, just like you were before the 06 election when you said dems would not win the house or the senate.

democrats trusted over bush on war
Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; Page A01

Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As the president and Congress spar over war policy, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.


POLL DATA

Washington Post-ABC News Poll


Graphic
The Washington Post - ABC News Poll: Widespread Disapproval
President Bush and Democrats in Congress are both rated negatively on their handling of Iraq war policy, but head-to-head most trust Democrats on this issue and want Congress to decide when to pull out U.S. troops.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
BloggerFodder.net
Vote Hawaii(Ron Paul) - MySpace Blog
The "Bush"-Whacked Administration


Full List of Blogs (61 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook




The president has steadfastly asserted his power as commander in chief to make decisions about the war, but his posture is now viewed by majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans as too inflexible. Asked whether Bush is willing enough to change policies on Iraq, nearly eight in 10 Americans said no.

Since December, the percentage seeing Bush as too rigid has increased 12 points, with the most significant change among Republicans. Just after the 2006 midterm elections and the release of the 79-point plan from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, 55 percent of Republicans thought Bush was willing enough to change course in Iraq; in this poll, 55 percent of Republicans said he is not.

Bush's overall approval rating equals its all-time low in Post-ABC News polls at 33 percent, with 65 percent disapproving. Fifty-two percent said they "strongly" disapprove of his job performance, the highest figure of his presidency and more than three times the 16 percent who strongly approve.

Three-quarters of Republicans approve of the way he is handling his job, but just one in 10 Democrats and three in 10 independents give him positive marks.

The war has been the single biggest drag on the president's approval ratings.

Thirty-one percent give him positive marks on handling the situation in Iraq, which is near his career low on the issue. The last time a majority approved of the president's handling of the war was in January 2004.

Even among those Americans who said they had served or had a close friend or relative who served in Iraq, 38 percent approve of Bush's handling of the conflict.

At the same time, Congress fares little better with the public on the war. Just 35 percent said they approve of the way congressional Democrats are handling the situation in Iraq, with 63 percent disapproving. Two-thirds of independents give the Democrats negative marks on the war.

The latest poll was conducted July 18 to 21 among a random sample of 1,125 adults, just after Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation that would set a timetable for the start of troop withdrawals from the war zone. The results have a three-percentage-point margin of sampling error.

Overall approval of Congress stands at 37 percent in the new poll, with the 60 percent disapproval rating equal to public dissatisfaction with the Republican-controlled Congress late last year. Congress's approval rating has declined over the past three months because self-identified Democrats have soured in their assessment.

thighmaster
i agree with biden who has been saying for 2 years now that iraq should be split into 32 loose federations with a central government just for parsing out the oil and such.

i see the good news in iraq, its just that everything we are told turns sour at the end.

for example it is my observation that it is a little safer in bagdad (although 50 died yesterday) but the whole reason for the surge was to give the politicians time to reconcile and now they go on vacation.

that is crazy and you know it.

why are our military dying while iraqi parliament goes on vacation.
you simply cannot expect the american people to support that sort of thing.

oops
i mean 3 loose confederations not 32 obviously

bbd
on Orr, negative

One last comment, we seldom talked to press because quotes were almost always changed or taken out of context.


thighmaster
i was reacting to wiseone more than you and you know that i don't normally get that way and i do respect the fact that you personally are usually civil.

i do think that in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider liberal media biased, conservatives in general have allowed themselves to be too heavily influenced by biased conservative media.

conservative media has a market and they are going to feed the market what they want to hear.

that is why i have a problem with micael yon.
he is catering to a conservative audience because they are the ones funding him.
he needs to give his audience what they want to hear or his funding witll stop.

religiouslibnut
writes: " go ahead and listen only to the biased conservative media and see what happens in 08."

Therein lies the difference. For you it about the next election. For some of us it is about the future and our country.

If you think that being in Iraq is bad, just imagine what will happen if we leave precipitously. Not only a repeat of what happened in Cambodia as far as the Iraqis are concerned, but Iran and Syria will fill the vacuum and we would be much worse off than we are now.

Terrorism didn't start with our going into Iraq and it won't stop with our leaving.

I suggest you pull your head out and read "The Sword of the Prophet". You obviously dont' have a clue about what the real threat is.

thighmaster
the poll you cite is a month old.
it is interesting to me that when a poll supports the conservative point of view it gets cited again and again but when a negative poll comes out it is not to be trusted.

some hypocrisy there.

i will agree that you cannot trust either left or right media but polls are pretty scientific these days and you can literally go and see what questions are asked and what the methodology used.

that makes it very easy to see if there was bias.



Hal D
If you decide to join the festivities today, you may want be careful who are your allies.
To wit! You have dem der two bad motorcycles (wannabes), THE True American and THE Big Black Dog.
THE True One thinks that anyone who served in the military since WWII is a sucker. I don't think that you are a sucker. Any one who flies an F-4 for 1500 hrs, in my opinion, is to be respected and has my admiration for what it's worth.
Furthermore True One, I'm not a sucker.

THE True One asked ssgt:

"ssgt...
are you one of the vets who is afraid to fight?

THE Dogg implied that I was a "yella bustard". F-4 pilots aren't "yella bustards" by any stretch of the imagination. THE Dogg, who probably faked his medical problem (maybe a Section 8), has the gonads to call a Korean War Vet a "yella bustard". So Hal be selective.
One vet to another

religiouslib
writes: "i do think that in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider liberal media biased, conservatives in general have allowed themselves to be too heavily influenced by biased conservative media."

I think that those of us who listen to both sides get a far more accurate view than those who rely soley on either the very biased MSM or Rush Limbaugh alone.

Maybe you should start balancing the news sources YOU listen to/read.


by sour in the end
i mean that every time we are told there is progres in a specific area, 6 months later its back to square one. for example, tal afar, fallujah and ramadi have been cited in the past 2 years as success and boom, 6 monthe later our brave men and women are dying in those places again.

you don't understand this is not about bush anymore, the vast majority of americans (except for the 30 per centers who support him no matter what) want this ordeal to come to some conclusion.


blaming it on dislike of bush or rules of engagement is just not justified.

wally
i read the washington post and the times
i listen to conservative and liberal talk radio and i watch oreilly and olbermann ;


can you say the same or do you simply limit yourself to the biased conservative media

BBD
It must have been a bad day for you and your push-up injury. As I recall the usaf does there PUSH-UPS from there knees.

Please leave
This article is just what you would expect of a typical liberal. It doesn't make any sense.

The average number of attacks last June was at its highest level since May 2003. The sectarian power struggle cannot be fought to a conclusion until we leave.

First, some terminology.

I make no differentiation between liberals and neocon liberals who everybody knows are Trotskyites.

Nor is it correct to say that just because Reagan had some of these people in his administration that he would have let them hijack the party.

But there is some hope for the Republican Party. We might get rid of them and they might leave.

Here’s a couple of quotes from King Trotskyite Bill Kristol


"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.

“If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

Yes, it does. But excuse me Bill, the right phrase is not “traditional” conservatives. Rather, it is simply conservatives period -- you know like Ronald Reagan and Casper Weinberger?

Of course, conservatives believe in a strong defense driven by well thought-out arguments. Liberals just to put together a bunch incoherent statements.


Please, by all means, take you and your neocon liberal Trotskyite friends back to the Democrat party where all of this silly “ideology” started.

For religiouslib
Re: Rush Limbaugh

The factual content of Limbaugh's program is continuously audited for accuracy by a professional, non-partisan company and he has achieved an accuracy rate of 98.5%.

So, religiouslib, instead of 'refuting' Limbaugh by laughing, maybe you'd care to cite some actual examples that show how the Democrats' main theme last Fall was retreat from Iraq.

As I recall it was all about Mark Foley, the alleged (and still not proven) "culture of corruption", and trying to kill the Patriot Act.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Of course, this is in addition to the fact that neither you nor any of your anti-war fellow travelers can answer the charge that you fear victory. You also cannot answer the charge that you are willing to let millions die to serve your political interests at home.

When a few vicious criminals at Abu Ghraib have to wear underwear on their heads and be led around on dog leashes you cry "Torture! Torture!" But you're willing to let millions of innocent men, women, and children be brutally raped and murdered, and those that survive be ruthlessly subjugated and exploited forever in order to sooth your hurt feelings over losing the 2000 election and to get revenge for the impeachment of a sociopath.

How proud of yourselves you must be.

religouslib
as far as i can tell thous cities you named are now fine and secure. just remmeber the surge has only been in full effect for a few weeks i am going to give it a few months before i comint on its effectivness.

thighmaster
thats a red herring

reid was saying what most americans believe.

you are really caught up in this vast liberal conspiracy thing about bush.

bush is irrelevant at this point.

the war has been prosecuted incompetently and that is the message the american people are trying to send.

as far as bush i saw more hatred and insults directed at bush over immigration by conservatives than any democrat could even think of.

it is conservatives who have bush derangement syndrome now.


chr335
than you havent been paying attention to the news.

those cities are still a mess, there was a huge bombing in ramadi in the past month.
plus the mayor was shot.

more importantly this idea that the surge just started last month is propaganda.

true that was the last brigade getting into place but the other brigades have been in place since feb. and march.

chr3354
here are some figures


Sunday 8 July: 94 dead
Baghdad: car bomb in Karrada; gunmen attacks on officials, Waziriya; gunmen shoot dead 4 family members, Ghazaliya; car bomb outside restaurant, Jadriya; roadside bomb, Shorja market; attack on home, Jami'aa; 29 bodies found.
Haswa: 23 army recruits killed by suicide truck bomber crashing into their vehicle, on their way to enlist.
Mosul: 7 killed in separate incidents.
Samarra: woman and 2 children killed by mortars.
Buhruz: 5 bodies.
Kirkuk: 3 bodies.

Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians call on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves.

Saturday 7 July: 186 dead
Baghdad: 19 bodies found.
Amirli: in the 17th major attack this year (with 50+ killed) a truck bomb explodes in a market, killing 156 people, at least 3 of them children. (There were 12 major attacks in 2006.)
Yathrib: US forces bomb police checkpoint, killing 2 Iraqi policemen. US forces have informed the authorities that this was an 'accident', as they had not been informed of the existence of this checkpoint.

Friday 6 July: 84 dead
Baghdad: mortars kill 7 members of the same family (mother, father, 4 children and another relative) sleeping on the roof of their house, Fadhil;
woman crossing the road shot dead by US troops, Adhamiya; 5 bodies found.
Zargosh: suicide bomber blows up funeral tent killing 22 mourners.
Gluelaa: suicide bomber kills 26.
Mosul: gunmen shoot dead husband and wife.
Salaheddin: gunmen kill 7 relatives of Sheikh Shalakh Al-Rufaiye.
Umm Hilayil: roadside bomb kills a child.
Mahmudiya: 2 bodies found.

Thursday 5 July: 75 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 18 members of wedding party, including 3 children; roadside bomb, Dora; 11 killed in clashes; 24 bodies found.
Samarra: 3 killed in US Army-Mehdi Army clashes.
Ishaqi: gunmen attack police convoy, kill 3.
Baquba: 1 head found.
Muqdadiya: 2 bodies found.
Falluja: 5 bodies found.

Wednesday 4 July: 84 dead
Baghdad: clashes in Mansour; gunmen attack shops, Meshtal; car bomb, Saidiya; gunmen kill woman and 4-year-old son, Saidiya; 16 bodies found.
Baiji: suicide car bomber attacks police patrol, kills 7.
Samarra: roadside bomb kills 4 policemen.
Ramadi: suicide car bomber kills 15.
Muqdadiya: 17 civilians reported killed in US air strike.
Nasiriya: doctor and 3 family members shot dead at home.
Falluja: 2 bodies found.
Mosul: 2 bodies found.
Basra: body of interpreter found.

Iraq's Red Crescent reports 217 corpses have been recovered under the wreckage of bombed houses in Baquba, since the start of operation 'Arrowhead Ripper.'


Tuesday 3 July: 78 dead
Baghdad: 18 killed when car bomb explodes at Shalal market; mortars in Amil; gunmen kill 2 gardeners in Dora, 3 men maintaining sewers in Adhamiya; 5 -Sheikh Ibrahim Khalil al-Zawba'i and four of his sons- killed by US forces as they slept; 18 bodies are found.
Samarra: 2 killed in clashes.
Kirkuk: 4 killed by car bombs.
Balad Ruz: 4 shot dead.
Mosul: gunmen, car bomb, roadside bomb kill 4.


Monday 2 July: 60 dead
Baghdad: man killed by US troops in Rasheed; car bomb in Al-Binook; sniper attacks in Karrada, Hay Saddam; mortars, Hay Saddam; roadside bomb, Adhamiya; 17 bodies found.
Khalis: high school student shot dead by Iraqi troops.
Falluja: suicide car bomber blows up outside the house of tribal leader, kills 4, 1 child included.
Diwaniya: US forces shell eight houses, killing 14 people, 6 of them children under age 12; Iraqi police shoot dead 17-year-old youth during
demonstration over US shelling of civilian homes

Venom
I have read all the posts up to now. If only we could take the venom that the posters have for each other and use it on our enemies... WOW... They would not have a chance!!! I too get very emotional over this whole debate. God have mercy on us all when we start focusing more on each other than the enemy. Is this not what the Shia's and the Sunni's are doing at the expense of a potentially great nation? (Iraq)


wiseone
lets start with this quote from el rushbo himself

"During his radio show yesterday, conservative personality Rush Limbaugh announced that he felt "liberated" by Tuesday's election results and that he doesn't "have to carry the water for people that I think don't deserve to have their water carried." He said that while he was not going to "eat his own" or "throw my own overboard," he also acknowledged that it isn't his "job to make them succeed."


so how many times did he "carry water" in other words lie for those he didn't believe in.

as far as your survey that is a joke.
there are multiple websites dedicated to rushs lies and misinterpretations of facts.

he is blatantly biased and i have no problem with that but to quote him as a source is the same as me quoting micael moore as a source.
if you don't recognize that you are to partisan to reason with.


in fact he claimed recently he had never called the clintons murderers and on then a talk show host played 10 snippets from his show in the 90"S when he in fact said it.

the man is a drug addict and you use him as a source.
please return to the real world.


vallotton
"Is this not what the Shia's and the Sunni's are doing at the expense of a potentially great nation? "

Seems to me our invasion, which threw them into anarchy, is what is causing their distress -- not some lack of moral fortitude on their parts.

I also don't see who we are to tell one group they have to live under the domination of another group.

How would you feel about some outside force telling us we could not separate from the British?

I would prefer not to see violence, but if one group wants indpendence and feels that it is necessary to fight for it, I don't quite understand what you want our troops to do about it.

Nor do I understand what this has to do with an "enemy".

Of course, neocon liberals, like all liberals, are notorious for using specious terminology.

Yo Big Black Dog
Not hysterical by any means; just cautious and "keepin' my powder dry".
BTW BBD!! I haven't seen any posts where the poster, in my opinion, has been hysterical. That is your interpretation.
Ain't free speech wonderful?

religiouslibby
Re: your 1:33 post

I challenged you to provide examples of Democrats campaigning on a promise to retreat from Iraq. You came back with more attacks on Limbaugh.

Point, game, set, and match to me. I'd shake your hand but you can't come to the net. You're not even in the stadium.

BTW - Regarding your "exit polls, which are accurate."

The exit polls in 2004 'prove' that Kerry won that election. The exit polls in 2000 convinced NBC to 'call' Florida for Gore before the real polls were even closed.

Meanwhile, the NY Times (not exactly a conservative source) reports on a poll today that support for the war is UP.

Not that I care. These polls are taken by phone, by calling residences between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays. In other words when people with regular jobs aren't home. So what we get is the preposterous claim that a "poll" of 900-1,200 Oprah watchers is an accurate reflection of the country with an error margin of 3%.

thighmaster
could say the same about you but if we look at every prediction about this war who has been right and who has been wrong.

face it
we were told this war would last a maximum of 6 months --wrong
we were told there were weapons of mass destruction-wrong
we were told there was no insurgency--wrong
we were told the iraqi oil would pay for war and reconstruction-wrong
we were told after saddam and sons were dead it would be different -wrong


i mean i could go on but i don't for the life of me understand how you can believe in an administration that has been so wrong so often.




wiseone
the poll you cite today is not support for the war it was simply asking if going to war was a mistake and that has climbed to 40% after falling to 33%.

as far as what the dems ran on they ran on culture of corruption and changing the direction of the war.

you can say what you want about 2000 and 2004 but the exit polls for 06 were right on the money.

here are quotes from the day before the election frome the democrat chairman.

Posted: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:15 PM by Mark Murray
Categories: Democrats, Security
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, the respective chairs of the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees, held press conferences today (Schumer's on camera; Emanuel's by phone) guaranteeing a change of course in Iraq -- if Democrats take control of Congress. "Should we get into office, there will be a change of course in Iraq," Schumer declared. "We have to make 2007 a year of transition." (Of course, that differed from Howard Dean's assessment a week ago that Democrats "don't have the ability" to force Bush to change the course there, although he did say that they could put pressure to enact timetables and benchmarks.)

more for rl
""During his radio show yesterday, conservative personality Rush Limbaugh announced that he felt "liberated" by Tuesday's election results and that he doesn't "have to carry the water for people that I think don't deserve to have their water carried." He said that while he was not going to "eat his own" or "throw my own overboard," he also acknowledged that it isn't his "job to make them succeed."


"so how many times did he "carry water" in other words lie for those he didn't believe in."

And this has what, exactly, to do with Iraq? When has "el rushbo himself" ever said we were wrong to go to Iraq? That we were wrong to stay there and finish the job?

"as far as your survey that is a joke."

It is not a "survey" and it is not mine. It is the results of a professional fact-checking service that Limbaugh employs. What fact-checking service does the MSM use? MoveOn.org? DailyKos? Rosie?

"the man is a drug addict and you use him as a source."

Thank you for your charming example of liberal compassion. Limbaugh became addicted to PRESCRIPTION pain killers that were prescribed for him to treat INOPERABLE back pain. He has KICKED this addiciton despite the fact that it means he has to endure the pain.

Last week, when Al Gore's son was caught speeding (104 mph) with drugs in his car Limbaugh appealed to his audience for sympathy for young Gore with an implication that the appeal was also to his family and friends to get him the help he needs.

Compare this to your attitude about Limbaugh's former addiction. Compare it to the sheer joy that Michael "they flushed a Koran at Gitmo" Isikoff made no effort to contain when he learned of Limbaugh's addiction. When some Hollywood bimbo gets hooked on a recreational drug the left overflows with sympathy. When Bill Clinton can't keep his libido in his pants it's the right's fault for pointing out that he has disgraced the office of the Presidency.

But Limbaugh faces up to and defeats an addiction inflicted on him by a prescribed medical treatment you not only gloat, you drag into every discussion about the man even though it HAS NEVER BEEN RELEVANT to his persona. You even attempt to tarnish his supporters with it.

Thank you. Thank you for proving who is really 'mean-spirited'. Thank you for demonstrating who really traffics in 'hate speech'.

Like I said before, despicable.

Limbaugh has more courage and class in his little finger than you have in your whole liberal movement.


rl
"the poll you cite today is not support for the war it was simply asking if going to war was a mistake and that has climbed to 40% after falling to 33%."

What part of "UP" do you not understand? 40% is HIGHER than 33%.

When 40% of the people now say it was NOT a mistake to go to Iraq, and that number used to be 33%, that means support is UP.

Your own liberal MSM is forced to report it and you react by obfuscating what it means.

But it's perfectly OK to 'summarize' the results when they favor your point, isn't it? When a poll shows 51% are dissatisfied with our progress in Iraq it's perfectly OK to 'summarize' by saying "the war is lost" (just ask Harry Reid) or "the American people want to bring the troops home."

Try again.

oh thighmaster
you are the liar

i am not going to do the research for you but these things i said were said in public before congress.

HERE IS WOLFOWITZ

Wolfowitz tells the U.S. House Budget Committee that oil exports would pay for the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq. “It's got already, I believe, on the order of $15 billion to $20 billion a year in oil exports, which can finally -- might finally be turned to a good use instead of building Saddam's palaces,” he testifies



HERE IS RUMSFIELD DENYING THE INSURGENCY


Rumsfeld had an epiphany over the weekend and calling the enemy insurgents “gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit." To call the enemy that [stor y] [DOD transcript]

I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don’t have a legitimate gripe. They’ve got a peaceful way to change that government through the constitution, through the elections. These people aren’t trying to promote something other than disorder and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate, and then spread it around the world. This is a group of people who don’t merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I’ll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I’m sure you will.”

HERE IS MORE THIGHMASTER


Cheney: In weeks rather than months
Mar. 16, 2003Dick Cheney
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months." --on NBC's Meet the Press

Rumsfeld: I Doubt Six Months
Feb. 7, 2003Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: (more)

Rumsfeld: Under $50 billion
Jan. 10, 2003Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

Rumsfeld: Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer
Nov. 15, 2002Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." (more)


NOW WHO IS LIAR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OR ME


ThighMaster
"And how did he get a Prius to go over 100 MPH anyway??"

LOL

That question has been all over the blogs ever since that part of the story came out. If I was young Gore's attorney I would consider using that argument for a reason to have the whole thing kicked. Obviously the cop's radar equipment was malfunctioning and therefore the evidence is inadmissible as fruit from a contaminated tree.

thighmaster and wiseone
done so i have to go.

but for two intelligent people you are certainly blind to facts.

you are so concerned about how you percieve liberals to be that you can't see the forest for the trees.

rush hires a company to fact check him and you wonder why i question the validity of such a thing.

wouldn't we all like to be evaluated by someone who works for us.

see what i mean, it just doesn't make sense but you are more concerned with anyone attacking rush than seeing things clearly

Thighmaster
I have nothing against the USAF, they saved my but in NAM and a few other places that I had missions to. Im a 22 year retired US ARMY(SPECIAL OPNS) the problem I have is with ex-military people who think that we have lost the BATTLE IN IRAQ. I have 7 family members in this WAR and Im proud of them all. They all have been to IRAQ at least 3 Times and everytime they volunteered. My son is an APACHE PILOT in the ARMY. The problem I have is with these people who have never been in combat or any other conflict stating to me that something that they dont have the B*LLS to do, that we have lost.

rl
"done so i have to go."

Don't let the screen door hit your backside on the way out.

Religouslib
my son was in BOSNIA and my cousin is there now.
I and they recall CLINTON telling the AMERICAN people that we would be home by XMAS that year. HUM we are still there so who lied about that one. We can all find things that the leaders of this country has lied about. Especially my favorite one was I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN. My kids came home from school asking me what a B.J. was. Now you have OBAMA wanting to have sex ED for KINDERGARDEN students. Hell they cant even spell SEX at that age(4-5 YRS OLD)

absurd logic
"rush hires a company to fact check him and you wonder why i question the validity of such a thing.

wouldn't we all like to be evaluated by someone who works for us.

see what i mean, it just doesn't make sense but you are more concerned with anyone attacking rush than seeing things clearly"

Another fine example of liberal logic. Companies hire auditors all the time to give them an objective unbiased audit of their business. To suggest they provide inaccurate results to please the company that hired them is just plain ignorant.

Will
"More than 6 in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home."

Well I guess we should just tear up the Constitution and do what 60% of the polled members feel should happen.

WILL
The only problem with the 6 in 10 say congress should have the final say on bring troops home. They probably is they only survey 800 like they always do. That dont seem like to me over 300 MILLION AMERICANS. This thing with all of AMERICANS want the troops home now is starting to get redicules.
If Congress wants to be Commander In Chief have them vote on reduing THE CONSTITUTION. The DEMS always like to state how our FOREFATHERS would be thinking of this. I assure you that if our forefathers had any idea how this COUNTRY would have turned out then maybe they would not have made THE PRES as Commander in Chief either. But they did and Congress has to deal with it. I could just imagine what our forefathers would think about 500 Commander in Chiefs want-a-bes
. (CONGRESS)

ALSO
Will, if you believe in POLLS so much then I cant understand why you would think that 60% of the people want comgress to take charge and bring the Boys home, how do you explain the 14% approval of CONGRESS. That seems to me like the blind leading the blind.

apoplectic
Don't bother will with details like the Constitution. He's on a mission. He's got an important war to lose.

To All You Folks

Am I the only one who would like a lot less attention paid to "Religious Libber".??. We are wasting a lot of toilet paper on this guy not to mention sweat and foam. Heck,(sic) I start to foam at the mouth every time he or it opens their mouth.

Takes a lot of the fun out of reading this column.. I mean what's the point..Just a dry run with this squirt..

True American
Im passed my p*ss and vinegar days but if they would take me I would go back today. Im not a coward like I see allot of you people on this internet everyday complaining about,We have lost bring them home. I am invovled with my community everyday with sending packages to the boys and girls that serve our COUNTRY proudly. So Mr True American what have you done for your country lately, except complain?

For onceamarine
Re: religiouslib

We can boycott him if you want. I like to prod him to see just how stupid a liberal can be if he really tries. I have yet to find the 'floor' on this.

You People, tanabear
As in the left, jsut don't even bother to get the other side...ie, not the MSM version. So tanabear, if you would, you would find plenty good in Iraq...but that would mean you had to open your eyes to the truth and you can't handle the truth.

Two more libs...
... who still won't answer my charge that they fear victory in Iraq because of what it will do to the Democrats politically.

will and BBD

I'll add your names to the list.

will,

If the Democrats were elected to get us out of Iraq, and if 60% say they should do just that (although that's not exactly what your MSM poll says), and the Democrats ran against Iraq, and against 'corruption' and 'pork', why did San Fran Nan have to bribe reps in her own party with $28 billion in 'pork' just to get 218 votes on a bill to do that when there are 230 Democrats in the House?

Chuck,

It's not 800 people. It's 900-1,200 who are at home and thus available to answer the phone when everyone who has a regular job is working. In other words, we should let public policy be decided entirely by those who are not working at a time when unemployment is at an all-time low.

True American
Please enlighten us with your definition of a "true american". From where I'm sitting, your handle sounds like you're trying to compensate for something. Kind of like the 400lb donut stuffing woman with a handle of "hot chick".

ThighMaster
I guess the "Captain America" handle was already taken.

wiseone: dems fear victory in Iraq?
First of all Bush and the repubs have never really defined what the heck "victory" in Iraq
means, so exactly why should democrats fear anything so vague in concept?

you know whats really embarrassing for Bush and his supporters?

That with the worlds most powerful military with all its modern and sophisticated weapons, gadgetry and intelligence capabilities, Bush and company cannot defeat a bunch of ragtag insurgents armed mostly with people bombs, ied's, and outdated weapons.

What you repubs/cons dont understand is that democrats dont view Iraq as a win or lose situation. It simply is what it is (a mess) and
view it as a situation that needs correction and solutions that bush isnt providing. apparently the vast majority of americans agree because if
repubs/cons continue to support bush on iraq they do it at their own peril. you got an unpopular president presiding over an equally unpopular war and his answer is to "stay the course"?

Yes we support surrender. that is surrendering responsibility for security and defeating the insurgency to the Iraqi police force and military

dems are looking really good for taking total control of all three main branches of govt in 08,
with the republican party in complete dissaray.

no what democrats fear is that will alter his course to match their strategies and actually start withdrawing troops from Iraq before prez elections 2008.

BBD
I still disagree with you concerning VC "winning". They had 45000 KIA vs 4200 for US/RVN


After TET , becuase of the number of soldiers lost ,they had to rely on ther NVA more, and when the NVA took over in 74, the NVA pushed the VC aside.


Here is a website with data from the Viet NAm government.
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html#press

As to the losses sufferd by Viet Nam.

Truent American
Hit close to home huh? You flag ThighMaster as offensive after your ballpark frank remark. Sounds like your handle would be "Brave American" if it wasn't for that don't ask, don't tell policy.

will
Duly noted. Honest mistake. All you sniveling little surrender pansies sound alike.

For Left Angle and Big Dogg
The Bush administration has defined victory in Iraq. It just has not been agreed to as the definition of victory by the liberal media so you are left with the impression that there is no such thing. In fact, it is implied in both of your posts that neither of you will accept anything we accomplish in Iraq as "victory". Big Doog, you have demonstrated this not only in your discussion of Iraq, but also in your discussion of Vietnam.

This is known as "moving the goalposts". The tactic of demanding someting and then, when it has been achieved, redefining the terms of the demand so you can claim that victory is defeat, success is failure, yada yada yada.

Finally Big Dogg, you have called me out and begun your dissertation with the words "If I were a Democrat..." OK, if you're not a Democrat what are you? And how do YOU define victory in Iraq.

Bush has done it, now it is your turn.

Will
"May you go to your grave a prejudiced, bigoted & deeply unhappy man.... that's karma for you: you'll reap what you sow). But I hope you finally see the light one day."

And may a bloated camel spit in your frosted flakes. Sounds like you are the deeply unhappy one. Karma, ha. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad ones. Cry me a freakin river.

For True American traitor
"your idiotic assertion that dems want us to continue to have problems in iraq doesn't make any sense at all."

You are the one making no sense. I have made no such assertion. I have asserted that the Democrats and liberals want to force us to withdraw from Iraq because they are afraid if we stay and finish the job the Democrats will suffer politically at home.

It is bad enough that you bring your stupid ideas to this thread without trying to put them into the mouths of others.

"it is a false premise. no one other than saddam hussein has controlled that area of the world-ever."

You are living proof that Rush Limbaugh is right when he says some people think history begins the day they were born.

Saddam did not 'control' Iraq until 1976. They had a dictator before him and may well have another after we leave. What is your point?

The 'modern' state of Iraq was essentially created by the UK back in the thirties when British Petroleum discovered and developed the oil fields there. These oil fields were used to fuel the British Navy and Air Force in the Mediteranean (Malta) and North Africa during WWI and WWII. The nation Iraq most resembles politically is Yugoslavia in the sense that both of these are politically forced unions of three separate 'nations' of people; three separate ethno-religious cultures that probably would each have preferred to remain separate unto themselves. Just as Yugoslavia eventually separated so Iraq may in the future; of their OWN choice, not at our insistence.

"cutting our losses is a smart move."

Here's a shining gem of colossal stupidity. We 'cut our losses' in Korea and now N. Korea is menacing the rest of Asia with nuclear bombs. We 'cut our losses' in Vietnam and somewhere between 2 and 3 million civilians died. To this day Vietnam remains, in the words of Swift Boater John O'Neill, an island of desperate poverty in otherwise prosperous SE Asia. Cambodia lost an entire generation. The average age there today is something like 25. But that's OK with you as long as it doesn't effect your life. How noble you are.

"but how come you aren't in iraq? do you want us to lose or are you another chickenhawk pus?"

I'm too old to join up or I would be. I also tried to get hired to go over there as a construction consultant but there were too many guys in line ahead of me, @$$hole.

I have worked my entire career as a construction supervisor at job sites. I have crossed picket lines. I have walked steel beams. I have faced down angry iron workers and boilermakers who have waved spud wrenches at me and threatened to knock my f**k**g head off. Once I stepped between a bigoted carpenter and a black labor foreman who were having an all-out fight. The carpenter was trying to kill the black guy with a claw hammer and the black guy was defending himself with a 2 x 4. Mike Tyson had nothing on this carpenter either. Before I could separate them he bit the other man's lower lip off. I don't have to sit here and take being called a puss by some chickensh*t who doesn't even know how to spell it ("Pus" is a bodily fluid that is created when white corpuscles attack infectious bacteria in the body. It is most commonly found in untreated flesh wounds that are not cleaned and covered properly).

What are you doing to keep the country safe? Nothing. You're sitting at your keyboard looking down your nose at those who don't agree with your isolationism.

Like I suggested yesterday, this is a conservative website. Instead of continually dogging Republicans you should thank us for keeping the government of this country out of the control of a bunch of Marxists. So take your Libertarian arrogance to a Libertarian website, if you can find one that has more than three people on it. And don't come back until you've learned to appreciate conservatives for saving your @$$.


I'll make a prediction
This probably won't happen until the 2010 or 2012 election cycle. I predict that if the situation in Iraq improves enough where the Iraqi security forces can maintain security for themselves (Even with a few American military advisors) then those same politicians (Mostly Democratic and few RINOs as well) that were against the war and the surge, will take credit for the results. It's a crying shame that people like that would take adavantage of it just for polictal gain. I would classify that as treasonous.

will
Please explain to me how any of the objectives you discuss is furthered by our retreat from Iraq.

Left Angle
Writes

"What you repubs/cons dont understand is that democrats dont view Iraq as a win or lose situation. It simply is what it is (a mess) and
view it as a situation that needs correction and solutions that bush isnt providing."

So what do you call the surge? Isn't that a correction becuase the current strategy wasn't working?

will
You need a history lesson. Check out Charlie S post at 4:24AM

thighmaster
it is quite upsetting to give you facts and then instead of denying them you call me a liar.

i said we were told this war would last only 6 months and you said that was a lie so i provided you with this:


"Rumsfeld: Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer
Nov. 15, 2002Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

you said he was referring to the iraqi army, either way my friend he was wrong wasn't he.

i was right and you were wrong.

i said that the bush adminstration said we would use iraqi oil profits to pay for reconstruction.
you said that was not true.

i provided this quote;

Wolfowitz tells the U.S. House Budget Committee that oil exports would pay for the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq.

again i was right and you were wrong.

i said that the bsuh administration said there was no insurgency.

you said i was wrong.

i provided this quote;
I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don’t have a legitimate gripe. They’ve got a peaceful way to change that government through the constitution, through the elections. These people aren’t trying to promote something other than disorder and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate, and then spread it around the world. This is a group of people who don’t merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I’ll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I’m sure you will.”



once again i was right an you were wrong.

and you have the audacity to call me a liar.
sir, you are no gentleman

like alot of conservatives with faced with facts that disprove your statement you resort false statements and name calling.

conservatives like you only have feelings to make decisions because facts disturb you.






karennkc
i aways enjoy your posts and you keep your cool even in the face of the some of the most irrational conservatives on this site.

you are not alone and your contributions are worthy.

charles s
again you refuse to accept reality.

did wolfowitz and rumsfeld say it would take less than 6 months or not.

i did not specify bush i specified the bush administration.

sheesh
i know i am right when you have to parse words and intentions. like to you know what the meaning of is is?
you explain things just like clinton.

did wolfowitz say we would have to pay for reconstruction or that the iraqis would.

again you parse words because conservatives like yourself must defend these neo-con liars at all costs.

and finally did rumsfeld deny the insurgency, in fact, the administration wouldn't allow the term for the first year of the war.

you simply cannot think rationally because of your partisan prejudice.

i mean ask your friends if they were left with the impressions you so desperately need to deny.

bbd
"Deal with what fact? That one of the Generals in a two decade war said, 10 years AFTER the conflict, that the NVA was finished"

Incredible! I'm in awe of your sheer ignorance. "one of the Generals"? That's like saying Grant was one of the Generals. Eisenhower was one of the Generals. The posters here don't even need to make you look like an idiot. You do a fine job on your own.

Limbaugh
Nothing like a column by Mr. Limbaugh,or Ann Coulter to bring out sheer lunacy.In an earlier post,someone said" If we could put as much energy,and passion into fighting the enemy as we are here with the opposition we'd be done and out of there by now." This poster is absolutely correct. Unfortunately,our opposition seems to think this is about anything other than trying to fight the scourge that is extremist Islam. One wonders just who the enemy would prefer to behead first,those who would try and fight them,or those who would cower from them.Those who wish to ignore the threats we face,solely because of who we are,because they believe we are not of their faith,ignore this threat at your own peril. I will stick with those who see the problem for what it is,and to deal with it.All you deniers out there,I feel sorry for you,your blindness could turn out to be deadly.

U.S. vs Terrorists
Big Black Dog Writes:

joesolis says:
"Who do you want to win, The U.S. or these terror types?"

Win what, Joe?


The war, Big Black Dog, The war. You know, the thing the Dems/Libs keep accusing Bush of lying about to get us involved, despite the fact that a House, Senate and the 911 commission investigations all concluded that Bush DID NOT lie. We can debate the reasons why we're there, etc, etc, ad-nausium But what I want to know is: Who do you want to win? The terrorists or your own country?

So please, don't evade the question next time.

Thanks.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.