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
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Reporting for Duty -- Not
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Iraq isn't the big story this month. Gas prices are. In May, the Associated Press reported, U.S. military deaths plunged to the lowest monthly level in four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too. Gasoline also hit $4 a gallon. And you don't see as many "No war for oil" bumper stickers as you used to.

The success of the Bush surge -- with Iraqi forces having led offensives in three major cities and taking on Shiite militias -- has been greeted in America with a collective shrug. "My perhaps overly cynical view is that it's probably too much to hope for -- a lot of good news stories coming out of Iraq," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said during a recent conference call. But also, with the al-Maliki government clearing once dangerous areas and violence dropping, "Iraq no longer occupies the status as the overarching, all-encompassing crisis that requires full national attention."

Reporters based in Iraq have seen improvements. NBC News' Richard Engel told the New York Observer about a recent trip to Najaf, "I was walking around the city doing interviews, without any kind of security or back up at all. That felt great. I hadn't done that in years. A Chinese restaurant, takeout, just opened up down the street from our bureau. There were no businesses opening in '06 and '07. People are getting out more. You see more people on the streets going to markets. When I go to do interviews, I can stay longer."

And yet, there is a "marked drop-off in the appetite for stories from Iraq," ABC news' Terry McCarthy told the Observer. "That's partly due to the election, partly because of the fatigue, and partly because things have started to go right here. The spectacular car bombs, the massive attacks, you just don't see them anymore. A drip, drip story that's getting a little better day by day doesn't make a headline."

CNN's Michael Ware calls it "audience fatigue." Other journalists, who have risked their lives covering the war, complain that Americans aren't paying attention to their stories on Iraq.

If reporters think their work is unappreciated, imagine how U.S. troops in Iraq feel. They're working miracles -- to insufficient applause.

Four years ago, before the U.S. troop death toll hit 1,000 in September 2004, the war was the moral issue. When liberal Democrats were trying to take over Congress in 2006, they used the war to clobber President Bush and told America that if they were in power, the war would end. Well, they took control of Congress, and the war continues. So now there are fewer political points to be won banging the war.

As of Thursday, 4,098 U.S. troops had died in the Iraq war. Yet Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's No. 1 issue is the U.S. economy. When the senator talks about the war, he often does so in terms of the $12 billion spent each month in Iraq. Clearly, Team Obama figures that it's not the toll of American blood but the price tag that enrages voters in this short-attention span nation.

It seems the better the war goes, the less interest some partisans show in Iraq. Their attention wanders if they can't play the blame game and chant, "Bush lied."

Ah, and this time, the critics were wrong when they argued the surge could not work. Obama was wrong, and, face it, opposing the surge was the politically easy thing to do.

Conversely, John McCain supported the surge -- and he did so in opposition to well-wishers and pundits who argued that his support for the war would doom his campaign.

So Team Obama is reduced to nitpicking at McCain. When McCain told NBC's "Today" show that it's "not too important" when U.S. troops are brought home -- "We will be able to withdraw, but the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way" -- Obama surrogates pounced.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called McCain "unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of Americans, particularly of the families of the troops that are over there." Sure, McCain spent five years as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. His 19-year-old son, Jimmy, just returned from his first tour in Iraq and another son, Jack, is in the U.S. Naval Academy. Yet somehow Team Obama paints McCain as out-of-touch with military families.

Four years ago, when Iraq was center stage and Democrats thought opposition to the war would lead to electoral victory, Kerry led off his address to the Democratic National Committee with a salute as he announced, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty."

In 2008, now that prices at the pump are his big issue and Iraq is framed as an economic issue, what will Obama say: You deserve a break today?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Iraq
I have said from the start of this election that Iraq would not be as big an issue as everyone thought. Before too long, the border war will be more important to the voters. They don't have a long enough attention span. Our young men and women are indeed performing near miracles over there and O blama wants to bring them home immediatly and gut the military machine. What an idiot!

Alternate Sources of News
Thank goodness for alternate sources of war news. I’ve found websites like “The Iraq Model” and “The Long War Journal” less opinionated and more informative than any syndicated msm outlet:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

http://www.longwarjournal.org/

The current liberal bias seems so prevalent, most traditional publications like the NYT/IHT and Washington Post forego trying to hide their prejudice.

Perhaps that’s not a bad thing.

Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.

Nation Building set back for Bush?

WP-The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had “reached a dead end.” While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.

The moves by two of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders underscore how the presence of U.S. troops has become a central issue for Iraqi politicians as they position themselves for provincial elections later this year. Iraqis across the political spectrum have grown intolerant of the U.S. presence, but the dominant Shiite parties — including Maliki’s Dawa party — are especially fearful of an electoral challenge from new, grass-roots groups.

read more

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/key-iraqi-leaders- deliver-setbacks-to-us

having weak economy as legacy. whoopy.
I think it is entirely legitimate to question the sacrifice of around 4100(and counting)U.S. soldiers, plus many tens of thousands of soldiers sustaining lifelong, catastrophe injuries, hundreds of billions(eventually trillions)of American tax dollars expended on an Iraq which at the end of the day will have a Shia-based government that no one doubts will be closely aligned with Iran.

That is not to say we just walk away from this thing tomorrow.

And I can't agree with folks who say that.

We should strive to be mostly out of there by two years.

Colin Powell was right. He told Bush if we break it(Iraq), it is ours...that we will incur some obligation to keep it from descending into an even worse mess.

Iraqi government is stonewalling Bush on the security deal.

Even neocon koolaid drinkers must see the handwriting on the wall.

Iraqis do not accept what we have in store for them.

Bush ought not to complain. After all, we supposedly invaded Iraq so its people could be free to make their own decisions, including decisions on security, autonomy, relationship with Iran.

It was a bit amusing a couple of years back when Iraq's freely elected parliament voiced its strong solidarity for its hezbollah brothers-in-arms during the flare-up in Lebanon against Israeli soldiers.

I imagine there was some gnashing of teeth at the whitehouse over that.

And there will be lots more of that in the future.

One final point.

Is an anemic economy...staggering gas price hikes, loss of purchasing power of American consumers due to debasement of U.S. dollar, home mortgage crisis...that now has replaced Iraq as frontpage news such a good thing for the GOP this fall?

For voters may be asking: Who was in power when all these things occurred?

Even so, I think McCain has a pretty good chance of winning in November, but GOP losses in house and senate will be greater than expected.

In Obama, dems are fielding their weakest candidate.

I think obambi is
being seen more and more for the marxist surrender monkey that he is. Not all of us are as stupid as he would like us to be and patriotism runs a lot deeper than these liberals want to admit no matter what the party.

Under a McCain presidency, the troops will come home with the honor they have bravely earned and the Iraqi people will be free to determine their own destiny, unlike the thousands of poor souls who were sacrificed in Viet Nam and Cambodia when the democrat cowards in the congress pulled funding for the war.

For that liar kerry to try to disparage JSM is despicible, but typical of that sleazebag who is a legend in his own mind. He's an embarrasement to anyone who served in the same Navy.


Wanting It Over.
Bush promised a short war at a low cost, and delivered a long one at a much higher cost. The surge, in turn, worked - but it would also have worked in 2003, rather than in 2007. That 4 year span, during which the lack of security caused 4 million Iraqis to flee their homes searching for safer places to live due to the rise of Al Queida in combination with the Saddamists and the Shia militias, resulted in the much longer and more expensive war. Had Bush projected a long war at a much higher cost from the outset, he would never have had the support he enjoyed at the beginning. So, the majority have withdrawn their support or lost interest because he failed to deliver what he promised. It doesn't mean that they want to see Iraq decend back into anarchy, but they will never be enthusiastic about this war. At the same time, it doesn't help that the Iraqi people feel that we are responsible for what transpired during those 4 years. In both countries, a majority simply want it over. Many Americans, after all, are fully aware that once the Iraqi's can handle their own security, they will revert to the positions that most of the countries in the region have. They will support Hezbollah and Hamas as opposed to Israel, they will belong to OPEC, and they will have better relations with Syria and Iran, than they will have with us. And, as the opinion polls show, 75% of the Iraqi people, to include much of their leadership - meaning Sistani, are eager to see us leave. Our form of democracy is not their's, after all, and never will be.

In the end, we're fighting to give the Iraqi's what we promised in 2003, but could not deliver until 2008. The intervening 5 years soured public opinion in both countries, and having finally gotten it right, it doesn't mean that the public in both countries will forget those intervening 5 years, and suddenly rise up with great enthusiasm. And do they won't.

AMEN Seawolf !
"Seawolf
Location: VA

Reply # 1
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 7:50 AM EST I think obambi is
being seen more and more for the marxist surrender monkey that he is. Not all of us are as stupid as he would like us to be and patriotism runs a lot deeper than these liberals want to admit no matter what the party.

Under a McCain presidency, the troops will come home with the honor they have bravely earned and the Iraqi people will be free to determine their own destiny, unlike the thousands of poor souls who were sacrificed in Viet Nam and Cambodia when the democrat cowards in the congress pulled funding for the war.

For that liar kerry to try to disparage JSM is despicible, but typical of that sleazebag who is a legend in his own mind. He's an embarrasement to anyone who served in the same Navy."

~~~

I was in YOUR NAVY!

USN 1960-1966, FTG2

Redlac (#7) Pres. Bush NEVER promised

that "a short war at a low cost..."

Just one more leftist lie!

IN FACT, what Pres. Bush said was, it would be LONG and DIFFICULT!








Redlac : THIS is what Pres. Bush said...

"This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. "

Did you get the "... difficult and long-term project,..." part?

Yawn - There S/he Goes Again...
As if on cue - in the lame relay race that is the Neo-con press, another hack limps with the baton to report that the press is failing to report that there's nothing to report.
YES - we all know troop deaths are way down - we've been hearing that for months from both the left and the right - need I cite the NY Times - AGAIN? Yet a bloated old bag like Debra Saunders uses the exact same language as every other BLOATED OLD HACK that keeps repeating the same tired lie:

BUSH's surge? That's funny - he resisted it to the very end - when the DEMOCRATS won office - and it looked like he could no longer just keep feeding US soldiers into the meat grinder, he finally reacted. This is the Pelosi surge, my friends - as history clearly points out.

"If reporters think their work is unappreciated, imagine how U.S. troops in Iraq feel. They're working miracles -- to insufficient applause."

It's true - I saw a whole regiment just walking across water.

Of course old bags and hacks like Saunders can't really tell us WHICH miracles these troops perform - I'd love to ask her to expound - but she or Cheney or any of the regular water carriers just love going to hyperbole and stopping short.

What MIRACLES have the troops performed?
Oh yeah - they killed lots of people, paid off others, and offered support to the iraqis. Such miracles! Guys with guns using them! MIRACULOUS! Next, she tell us that the jets we build actually fly - as if by magic! And the bombs we drop actually explode - like a wizard did it!

And then there's Iran - conspicuously MISSING from bloated old Saunders reportage - perhaps, because, that doesn't fit her narrative as our troops being one part Christ and one part Superman?

No it doesn't. If you want to look to the peace in Iraq, don't look to DC - look to Tehran...

But Saunders is to busy limping in her race to find another Neo-con hack to hand off the baton to...



Anne
But Bush's people, specifically deputy assistant secretary of defense Wolfowitz, predicted Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction of the country, and that the invasion itself would cost no more than fifty billion dollars, tops.

And Larry Lindsey, top economic advisor in G.W. Bush administration, was fired when he was quoted in a newspaper that an invasion of Iraq could cost 200 billion dollars(Bush and his cronies did not want the public to think the war would cost even THAT). They glibly talked in terms of the war costing 50 billion.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars(soon to be trillions of dollars)ago was that?

Anne, your quote by Bush says "long-term project", and refers to the region.

The quote was not about Iraq war specifically, but part of the neocon, neo-Wilsonian, radically interventionist Bush scheme of bringing democracy to the muslim world.

Well, I think that dream is in tatters.

There may eventually be a functioning government in Iraq, but it will hardly be a democracy as we envision.

It will be one that is Islamic based, and probably strongly influenced by Sharia law.

It will have more in common with Hezbollah than with us.

You can try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but it ain't gonna fly.

Doggg writes: "What MIRACLES have the

troops performed?"

Well, for starters, they're protecting your right to be a STUPID, IGNORANT, IMBECILE!

How's that???

Ooops, Did MDoggggg get banned again?

Or a few more times?

He's now gone from MDoggg to MDoggggg.

Looks like he adds a "g" to each new screen name change to get back into TH whenever he's been banned. HA!

jerabaub: As usual, you're about 98%

W R O N G!!!


Anne
You need to start dating your quotes, before you react. Those quotes shifted steadily between 2003 and thereafter. They became a moving target. It's one thing to talk about a long worldwide war on terror. But it's quite another to deal specifically with Iraq and ignore the flow out of DC preceding and after the invasion. Jerabaub points out a few - but there were many others. You cannot, for example, find any specific reference to Iraq post 2004 that indicated that this administration thought that Iraq was going to be a long war, nor an expensive one. Which is why they never bothered to put the full complement of forces on the ground they'd originally intended to put there.

There were a never ending series of expectations right up until Rumsfields departure over when it would stabilize, when we could draw down forces, and the like - and you know it. Indeed, in the 2004 election, the routine was to talk about 2005, and in 2005, it became 2006, and so forth. Each year, they pointed to progress and to "success".

In the end, Bush lost credibility on the issue. At the same time, if you're skeptical of claims that this will be some shining Democracy in the ME, then the high moral tone of that enterprise that the Administration ultimately abandoned leaves us fighting for something less. And that robs people of enthusiasm as well. After all, you may be against abandoning the mission until the Iraqi's can provide some form of security - which is the current goal, but that's a far cry from having some great vision as well to pursue. Even as you talk, a majority of Iraqi's want us out in the next year. Even as you talk, they support Hezbollah, Hamas, and build relations with Syria and Iran. Does that cause you to rejoice? I'll bet it doesn't. It's just one of those contradictions that we have to live with.

Anneus Says:
" Doggg writes: "What MIRACLES have the

troops performed?"

Well, for starters, they're protecting your right to be a STUPID, IGNORANT, IMBECILE!

How's that???"

That's a lie - my right to be an imbecile was never threatened by Iraq or al qaeda - only chumps and cowards believe that. You can sell that bs somewhere else, because I'll never buy it - protecting my freedom!
What a joke!

As usual, annus, when pressed to explain yourself, the bile runs down your bloated wrinkled cheeks and chokes off your words...

Redlac frantically scribbles: "You need
to start dating your quotes, before you react."

Nope! Sorry. :-) From the VERY BEGINNING, Pres. Bush said it was going to be a "long and difficult" struggle. And THAT has never changed!

"Each year, they pointed to progress and to 'success.'"

Well, DUH! Yes... although progress is never consistent when it comes to war... There are always set backs...

Would like to at least give you credit for a nice try, but I can't even give you that this time.

maggie dougggggg
"MDoggggg
Location: KY

Reply # 2
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 10:05 AM EST Subject: Anneus Says:
" Doggg writes: "What MIRACLES have the

troops performed?"

Well, for starters, they're protecting your right to be a STUPID, IGNORANT, IMBECILE!

How's that???"

That's a lie - my right to be an imbecile was never threatened by Iraq or al qaeda - only chumps and cowards believe that. You can sell that bs somewhere else, because I'll never buy it - protecting my freedom!
What a joke!

As usual, annus, when pressed to explain yourself, the bile runs down your bloated wrinkled cheeks and chokes off your words..."

~~~


durn burn this nasty site...

MDoggggg
Location: KY

Reply # 2
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 10:05 AM EST Subject: Anneus Says:
" Doggg writes: "What MIRACLES have the

troops performed?"

Well, for starters, they're protecting your right to be a STUPID, IGNORANT, IMBECILE!

How's that???"

That's a lie - my right to be an imbecile was never threatened by Iraq or al qaeda - only chumps and cowards believe that. You can sell that bs somewhere else, because I'll never buy it - protecting my freedom!
What a joke!
~~~

woof, woof. I say, 'tis obvious that YOU the are annus, to all but the 'living dead'.

Curb thy scurilous tongue varlet, lest ye be smited.

IMBECILE ? I say, that is very rude and, I might say, exactly backwards.

If anyone is an IMBECILE, you are looking in the mirror.

Oh, by the way, do not allow yourself to go into a room, with just Anne and yourself. She WILL be the only one to walk out afterward.

Same with me, but I am not as nice as Anne.

and your description of yourself is priceless...


"As usual, annus-mouth, when pressed to explain yourself, the bile runs down your bloated wrinkled cheeks and chokes off your words... "

Do tell me poopy breath, does your drool choke off your words?

You ARE such a sweet cake.



Anne
You're response ignores the post. So be it. You seek cover in the comment of a long war on terror, but ignore those directed to Iraq. You can dispute nothing I, or Jerabaub for that matter, said directly, so you misdirect with the idea, basically, that wars often don't go as predicted - which is true, although there is no precedent for any other President waiting 4 years to change a policy that was not working. When given direct quotes, you avoid addressing them directly, and come up with none of your own related to Iraq that would dispute them. Frankly, I don't see why you would do this. The war is a long one because the administration understimated it in the early going and failed to put the forces on the ground needed. Now we have a disenchanted population.

And, not just here - but also in Iraq. Don't forget that in the end, it will be the Iraq's, not Americans, that make these decisions.

Bush was not in that quote

Anne
Location: VA

Reply # 18
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 10:06 AM EST Redlac frantically scribbles: "You need
to start dating your quotes, before you react."

Nope! Sorry. :-) From the VERY BEGINNING, Pres. Bush said it was going to be a "long and difficult" struggle. And THAT has never changed!
...

refering to the war in Iraq. there was nothing that this administration did in its planning or in its sales job that said "this is going to be a long costly war".

"the war will pay for itself" is a typical comment.

It has not.

Bush took a long time to change a failed course and that "time" not only cost him his presidency, but it cost 2-3000 Americans their lives

Robert

The News and Iraq
Our knowledge of the status of the war in Iraq is a function of the publications we read. From late March to this month, the successes in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul largely went unreported. Suddenly, when we hit a snag in our negotiations with the Iraqis over future security arrangements, "splash," there it is in all its ugly glory.

I fear at this point that the Democrats have successfully demagogued the people to the point that Barack Obama may well win the presidency in November. Should that happen, the likelihood of a total collapse in Iraq is a near given.

There will be no joy however in being able to say "I told you so." Schadenfreude will have no place for revelling.

The Surge in Perspective

Dear Ms. Saunders:

To understand why so many of us might not fully appreciate "Success of the Bush surge," I refer you to the following quote from Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, who, last October, four and a half years after Pres, Bush took us to war, wrote:

"The U.S. Government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win (the Iraq War)."

Considering that Pres. Bush, back in Oct. 2002 warned us that victory in Iraq was essential to U.S. security and survival, Lowry's words are in essence an accusation of treason.

Perhaps if Pres. Bush had in 2003 utilized properly the world's most prolific military there might not have been need in 2007 for a "surge" and at least a thousand of our troops would still be with us

I dont disagree with anything you wrote
nmi
Location: NJ...

the Rumsfeld years were horrific...but

to be fair...the full resources of the US government are more then just the military. FDR in WWII integrated the entire US government in the war. It is just inconcievable that the US military in many respects is having to do the work of the Dept of State.

Robert

To the Surge Apologists
Have yet to explain how this endeavor can be termed a success when the fundamentals it was designed to facillitate?

In that vein, how does the situation in Kirkuk figure into all of this talk about the 'success' of the surge?

Bryce...stability is the essence
bryce


In that vein, how does the situation in Kirkuk figure into all of this talk about the 'success' of the surge? ...

of civilized government. If you have groups that are trying to change things by armed intervention then the concept of civil discourse is lost under the "distinct sound of the AK-47".

What is trying to be done in Iraq is something that more or less has never happened...we are attempting to replace a strong man who ruled by in some form or fashion "the end of a barrel" with someone who is in some form or fashion connected to the negotiations of hte mouth.

Stability is an essential part of that discussion.

I was oppossed to Iraq because I knew 1) that it would be very hard and 2) there was no moral imperative to doing what we were going to do...but that argument is something I (and I guess you) lost.

The Democrats answer is to just walk away. To say to the American people "the 1 trillion plus dollars you ahve spent, the 4000 plus lives...ok lets just take them as a loss, blame Bush and go to something else".

That is wrong on so many levels.

Look you have been wrong on so many things...almost as many as Rumsfeld about the surge. I watched video from a Predator circlign Sadr's noon rally. he had less then 1500 (down substantially from the weeks before), they chanted for 20 mintues and went home. He is hiding in Iran.

See if this works...so far it is.

Robert

that should be
What is trying to be done in Iraq is something that more or less has never happened...(in the middle east)....

the editor regrets the error

Robert

wobbie
this iz yer buddy hal. Come on back into the fold, hon, i will let you sip my milk.

i no, itz 100 proof, vut yu well get uset to et.

c'mon sweatie, i stell luvs your.

i no yu be gon after thes mourning, coaus yo ar berry strang, butt hall stell luvs ya.


yer pull, hul. (hic) LMAO

dang, my arkh enema GunnyG gut a cobbyrite on hees nam. I wuner eff i kan git a petunt un my nam (hic) LMAO,

wobbie: yu r dunk. schlep it off.

an pull yer had outa mi arse. it hurtz

wobbie moppet


hul: (hic) LMAO (hic).. hay yu dummi, i created yu, don yu tull mi whut 2 due.

smortimar sturd you haint........... yu letter jork........

(hic) LMAO, LMAO... dung.. ef these keps up, i hav tu buy smeller pantz, im doun to siz 50 alreeda.

an notherthang i stik mi han up yer moppet orfis enytim i wont..


yu sae whut i wont er yu r tost. got thet, yu arogent poopy thin ?



There are many of us
that ARE following the news in Iraq, and you know, like before, most of it is GOOD. But with a MSM that really follows "it bleeds, it leads" adage; no one, and I mean NOT ONE OF US, will hear it from the likes of the MSM, ever.

We get a single line entry when heroes, whose names OUGHT to be common knowledge, at least as much as some high politico's mistress' is. Not in the 21th Century. Not in the United States.


Reply whines: @10:54AM "You're response
ignores the post. So be it. You seek cover in the comment of a long war on terror, but ignore those directed to Iraq."

No, wrong again. I don't "seek cover" anywhere, nor do I "ignore those directed to Iraq."

Long ago I lost tract of the times that I and many, many other posters ADDRESSED those exact questions.. It's getting very tiresome.

You just don't LIKE the answers, so you continue to ask again and again and again. The thing is, no matter how many times you and your limited leftists ask those same insufferably stupid questions, it will NOT change the answer.

Jerabaub
Like you, I think the Democrats have fielded their weakest candidate, and that this gives McCain a change at winning. However, I'm not entirely sure that I haven't been buying into the PR the GOP has been rolling out for three months to put lipstick on their own pig.

Consider. Wright was the big story - yet from the beginning to end, Obama's approval rate only slipped 3 points - meaning that most Americans dont' judge Obama by Wright. Then, we had the claims that Hillary's females would vote for McCain, not Obama, and that her appeal to Hispanics would flow more to McCain, than Obama. Now, however, we see that Rasmuussen, Gallup and the WSJ's polls over the last few days have Woman preferring Obama by 13% in the first two, and 19% in the third, (Kerry only carried women by 3%) and Hispanics preferring Obama by 62% to 28% (Bush got 44%). Then, we hear that the young don't vote - which is true if one qualifies it by saying in the same %'s that others vote. However, when you look at those that may vote, McCain barely registers. McCain gets the white guys - but Kerry and Gore lost them by 25% and 24%, so there's nothing new there. And then, of course, we're supposed to think that the Democrats are more divided than the GOP, yet 14 GOP congressmen refuse to support McCain in any way, and only 5,000 of the 62,400 contributors who maxed out to Bush in 2004, have donated to McCain. Now, of course, we see the Townhall story. Of course, it wouldn't be a story if McCain could give a decent speech, which he tried and failed to do a few weeks ago as his big "kick off". So, his brain trust decided "no more speeches", and instead, came up with the TownHall approach. Perhaps the pig is still a pig, and every bit as weak as Obama. And that's the scary part.

Cont'd
When you ignore the lipstick, you see that he's old, has no voting record that demonstrates any great interest in issues that appeal to woman, talks about Carter and VN, even though well over 1/2 the population remembers little or nothing about either, and now has the hispanic baggage to carry given the GOP's bases perceived hostility to hispanics. Then, we have his history of shooting off his mouth. Evangelicals are agents of intolerance,10 years ago he told a crude sexual joke about Hillary and Chelsea on camera, and didn't flinch when a supporter recently asked him on TV - how do we beat the b---h?

And then, you have Obama's money. He has it - McCain doesn't. Which is why McCain is trying to get him on stage to get free - airtime, which Obama can buy plenty of, and McCain cannot.

The Democrats aren't the only one to nominate a weak candidate. The GOP did the same.

Can he win. I don't think so. What I think - or at least hope. Is that Obama can lose.

It's the
"look over there!" mentality. The liberals gambled and lost and are distracting everyone so you won't notice.

Not every American is that stupid.

Redlac says:
"Like you, I think the Democrats have fielded their weakest candidate, and that this gives McCain a change at winning."

I think you mean you HOPE the democrats have fielded their weakest candidate - because if you go by most metrics - fund raising, organization, actual polls, favorability, McCain doesn't stand a chance. You only think Obama is weak because you DON'T think.

Not a single one of you have ever made a single concrete explanation as to why Obama should not be president.
What we get is a lot of snide, arrogant nonsense, plenty of innuendo, tons of smear by association (do you think he'll nominate Wright for the Supreme Court) - but nothing to damn Obama with either his actual words....


Dogggg breath: I'm quite impressed that

I somehow manage to get you so riled! :-)

I must be hitting some truth with you, otherwise you wouldn't be reacting as you do. LOL

Whooo Hooo! :-)



That is really not accurate
MDoggggg


I think you mean you HOPE the democrats have fielded their weakest candidate - because if you go by most metrics - fund raising, organization, actual polls, favorability, McCain doesn't stand a chance. ....

the metrics of fund raising are ephemeral. Remember Howard Dean!

In actual polls McCain is doing quite well...amazingly so if one considers how unpopular this President and his policies are.

What it is going to come down to are three things 1) which candidate the American people think is "really " who they claim to be (the legacy of "humble foreign policy" Bush), 2) which vision of America the people get convinced of and 3) how capable they think the two candidates are.

We will see.

Robert

Latter/later
off for some chow and bed (get to walk to chow!)...

John S. McCain POTUS...and Long Live The Republic

God Speed going home Tim Russert

Robert

redlick
"Redlac
Location: AZ

Reply # 31
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 8:08 AM EST Subject: Wanting It Over.
Bush promised a short war at a low cost, and delivered a long one at a much higher cost. The surge, in turn, worked - but it would also have worked in 2003, rather than in 2007. That 4 year span, during which the lack of security caused 4 million Iraqis to flee their homes searching for safer places to live due to the rise "

~~~

hay, bro, yu do be kool, butt yu R rong.

dids yu erver hev tu fite for sumding??????

if so iwud listen tu yers, an tak noates.


obtw, ny fren mrdmrd teech ni hoaw to tipe.


woof woof lick that doggie pile
"MDoggggg
Location: KY

Reply # 5
Date: Jun 15, 2008 - 1:31 PM EST Subject: Ratass says:
"Oh, by the way, do not allow yourself to go into a room, with just Anne and yourself. She WILL be the only one to walk out afterward."

Only if she breaths on me!

"Same with me, but I am not as nice as Anne."

Oh no - the big bad internet man just puffed his chest! Run and hide, dogg - run and hide...

Don't be boring, sir (or whatever you are) - Annus is a lame, Warpublican drooler - and you lap up the drool..."

~~~

Ratass: "mommie, mommie, a bad peson just said naughty things to me."

Mommie: " Honey just punch it in the nose, and you will feel better"

Ratass: "But mommie, I don't know who this turd is."

Mommie: " Don't worry, son, if he is a normal, God fearing person, he will identify himself. If he is not, he will hide in the shadows, and you must seek him out. Then, when you find him, you must break his nose, as you start the conversation."

OBTW, "Wave your left hand to distract the turd, as you break his nose with your GOOD RIGHT ARM."








OK !

I have wondered about this for a long time.

Does anyone know why the Conservative women in this world, all look like Goddesess, and the lefties are the crones from hell?

Just asking.

perhaps mr dogturd could expound upon this theory.

redlack... sorry.

Please forgive my poor reading comprehension.


It is late, for me. (midnight Vampire, here).

You do have a few good ideas, but I do disagee with you on others.

Bush. Yes, he did a very few good things.

He did several bad things.

Worse than Carter, or Clinton. No freaking way in hades.

Still, he is not a CONSERVATIVE !

Yes, he played the stealth game to get elected.

Do you be happy now?


Ratas
I'm a conservative, Bush is not. I want immigration laws enforced, government downsized and controlled, fiscal responsibility in Congress, the end of Teachers Unions and control of schools returned to the states. And, I do not want Iraq abandoned until they can provide their own security. Enough said. The problem now is McCain. The knives you see aren't the ones the Dems are putting in him, it's those coming from the right. Every week, you get more of the same. Michael Reagan writes a column a few days ago that says a "mumbler" can't get elected President, Bay Buchanan writes one that says "McCain is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new voters to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps". Cheney, a few days earlier, put a knife in McCain at the National Press Club by dissing him on his "gasoline holiday" proposal - no doubt a measure of payback for McCain's knifing of Rumsfield. And the beat goes on. Obama can run his entire campaign - should he choose - based on the comments of conservatives. He must sometimes think its Christmas, because for him, Conservatives are the gift that just keep on giving. These comments are read by millions, and are hardly likely to create enthusiasm or energize the GOP's base. Let alone anyone else. The GOP loves to talk about the National media's liberal bias, but that's small potatoes compared to a GOP that is eating its children.

Darn good column Ms. Saunders
I found the point you made, "Team Obama figures that it's not the toll of American blood but the price tag that enrages voters in this short attention span nation." This is the mind set of people who are always telling us that money and consumerism is the root of all evil? It's not a concern for the blood letting of our American soldiers that drive most of the left. They hate the military, therefore they devalue the men and women who volunteer to serve their country. So they focus on the monetary cost of the war because they think that's what the American people are most concerned about and they think that focus will get them elected. And, that folks, is all they really care about.
Don't leave our heroic military in the hands of these self-serving, bloated with self importance lefties in charge of our country. Yes, I know the laundry list of the Bush Administration offenses. None of it is more offensive than the inexperience and the marxist proposals of an incapable Barack Obama.

Changing news coverage
I hope and pray Iraq is truly getting better. I think people have both Bush fatigue and war fatigue. There have been so many lies about this war, and so much incompetence that I think many of us have kind of shut it off as a protective action. It's hard not to feel incredibly ashamed of the actions of the US government in this whole Iraq affair. And the suffering of the people there is unspeakable. But the awkward part for the media is, how do you report that something didn't happen, i.e. there were no suicide bombers in the market today. Iraq may finally be returning to normal but "normal" doesn't usually make headlines, either in Iraq of anywhere else. I live outside Detroit and our news doesn't report, "there were no shootings today in Detroit." I think Iraq had gotten so bad that, surge or not, it had nowhere to go but up. I know conservatives are desperate for good news but it's a little cheesy to set somebody's house on fire and then crow about how great you are when you manage to put out some of the flames. Iraq still has huge problems, hundreds of thousands dead, and over 2 million citizens displaced outside the country. Let's not celebrate quite yet.

Redlac: Brilliant
You stated perfectly the feelings I've had about watching the decline and fall of the Republican party. Its self-inflicted wounds greatly outweigh whatever short-comings of the Democrats. Republicans have lost the perceived moral high ground, the reputation for fiscal responsibility, any claim to accountability and personal responsibility. It worries me actually. I'm a tried-and-true liberal but I also value the counterweight of at least one opposing party (I wish the US had 3-5 viable parties to fight it out and keep each other honest). While a Republican-dominated government under Bush has been a disaster, I'm not so sure I want the Democrats with free-wheeling control. But that's the political environment 8 years of inexplicable Republican incompetence and "loyalty" to Bush has wrought. All signs are that November is going to be a worse bloodbath for the Repubs than 2006 was.

How Do We Let Our Guys and Gals Know...
we think they're doing a great job? They may get as much or more positive recognition from citizens of other countries as they do American citizens.

Only God (and our Gov't) knows where they may be sent next. They should know we take pride in them. I am not talking about individuals. I'm talking about getting the media off its ***. Any ideas?

Another thought. What's access to the Web limited to?

JeffreyR05
After what the Dems have done to Michigan,especially the Detroit area,I can't see how you could support them, and don't give me that I want to back a winner crap. I lived in Michigan for almost 30 years, was born there and couldn't wait to get out during the 70s. The state was turning into a ghost town and isn't much better now. Tourist trade, prisons and rust are it's only legacy! Rideout.

Anne
go get em' gal, give em' he.l!!! Ole' moon doggie or dogg cra. or what ever he calls himself can't hold a candle to ya'.

JeffreyRO5: @6:32PM writes to Redlac...
".... about watching the decline and fall of the Republican party. Its self-inflicted wounds greatly outweigh whatever short-comings of the Democrats."


It does recall a quote by Sir. Winston Churchill, when a lady on the street said to him, "Sir, you are drunk; very, very drunk."

Churchill's reply was, "Madame, you are ugly; very, very ugly. And I shall be sober in the morning."

Well, people and parties can and do recover from wounds, even self inflicted, as will the Republican Party.

Shortcomings, however, like the very ugly lady, will always be with the demo party.... It's part of who and what they are.


Hey eastlake joe: Thank you. :-}
I'm doing my best! But it would be a lot easier if poor mdoggg (and the others) actually had something worthwhile to debate... and debate WITH, for that matter. :-}



The GOP got in trouble
JeffreyRO5
Location: MI...

when it started having a litmus test for what views and comments had a place in it.

There are a few exceptions, like the illegal immigration fight, but for the most part the only voices that Bush and the corporate GOP have been listening to are the echo chamber of hte far right.

Iraq, out of control spending, Terry Schivao...are all why the American people dont like the "brand" and why McCain is doing well...he is percieved as not being "one of the right wing nuts".

Obama recognizes this and is busily trying to make McCain into a "Bush third term". If he suceeds then little JOhnny is finished.

I dont think he will..but the GOP needs to become a big tent again.

Robert

Wobbie
Trying to be wrong again? YOU shouldn't make predictions!

eastlake joe: After the way things have

played out, so far, in this campaign, anyone making any predictions is a fool!

HRC, the "obvious presumptive" dem nomination, is no long in the race (officially, that is.)

Rudy, the "presumptive" Republican nomination, dropped out of the race some time ago.

A year ago, McCain was officially declared "politically dead in the water"......

B. Hussein Obama, wasn't supposed to have a chance... was considered a flash in the pan.


No political pundit or strategist has "called" anything correctly since this campaign began (what is it now, 37 years ago... or so it seems!)

And, we STILL have approx FIVE MONTHS, and two general conventions to go....

The only intelligent thing anyone can say about anything still to come in this campaign is, "H@ll, I dunno."



Redlac
I agree Bush is no conservative.

But I never expected the doublewhammy of Bush's endorsement of a radically leftist neo-Wilsonian interventionism on foreign affairs, combined with breathtaking incompetence(both in foreign and domestic affairs).

I may be mistaken, but I have come to believe the analysis I heard on "McLaughlin Group" recently about Obama: Given the extreme negative reaction of most Americans to G.W. Bush and the Iraq war, the presumed Democrat candidate OUGHT to be 20 points up on the GOP heir-apparent(McCain).

The fact Obama is only 5 points up on McCain, in this extremely anti-GOP environment(occasioned by the policies of the current president), is NOT a sign of strength, but rather a sign of vulnerability.

I enjoy your comments. They are lucid and well-reasoned.

Unlike some children on this site, you are an adult and do not resort to name-calling and school-yard insults.

Anne
Sorry, but I couldn't help but push a little dig on our resident wacco and Wal-mart pilot Wobbie as he's been so sure about things in the past as to rub it in only to be proven wrong so many times. It's like a sure thing any more.

So what's the story here...
...that we spent over 1.1 Trillion dollars on this war so that some reporter can get Chinese takeout in Najaf??

eastlake: I know what you mean... :-}
But, the same also holds true for all our resident limited lib idiots here on TH.

What our resident limited lib idiots don't realize (probably because they're so intellectually limited :-} ) is that four years ago the polls showed even Pres. Bush behind...and by about the same amount as McCain, and we know how THAT worked out don't we?

And, how anyone would consider voting for a racist Marxist is beyond any and all rational and reasoned thought. (B. Hussein Obama does seem to have all the bases covered!)

Did you see THIS???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBH7LfGK8A0&feature=related

eastlake: I know what you mean... :-}
Anne -

Oh yeah, just like the polls showed Republicans behind in 2006, and we also know how that worked out, don't we?

You don't know what a Marxist is.

Dance with the one who brung ya
John McCain spent his Senate career playing the "maveric" to conservative republicans on virtually every issue. Well now that he is the republican nominee he will learn the meaningof the phrase Payback is a b1tch. Just see how many of the conservaitives come out and vote for him. I for one am going to vote for Bob Barr despite the fact he wont win I cannot bring myself to vote for the guy who seems more comfortable with Teddy Kennedy than Wayne LaPierre. While I hope McCain wins it's not because I am for him as much as I am against obama.

Vote gainst MLK day!
I can name at least a half dozen other people who did more for this country than MLK did. MLK day was nothing more than another attempt to buy the black vote. George Washington no longer has his own holiday neither does Abe Lincoln as their birthdays have been combined into Presidents Day. Come to think of it is there a federal holiday commemorating any single person with the exception of MLK day? Hell, Ben Franklin who did far more than MLK or any other activist does not have his own holiday. I have a test can anyone out there in Townhall land tell me when Ben Franklin's bithday is? I know what it is but just wanted to know if anyone else does.

MDoggg
I don't disagree, but it does make my point that the Dems are nominating the weakest candidate to take on McCain.

A Democrat holding truly moderate views would probably be 15 or 20 points up now.

If the Dems can't win the presidency in this extreme anti-GOP environment, they ought to find another line of work.

MDoggg whines @9:15AM: Like a "typical..

(limited) liberal."

"Which candidate used the word 'gook' unapologetically?"
** I have no idea!

"Which candidate refused to vote for MLK day?"
** And THAT automatically makes someone a "racist" simply because he or she didn't vote to make MLK day a national holiday?

That mentality in and of itself is pretty much a racist statement!

"Which candidate refused to vote for the reauthorization of the Civil Rights Act (of 1990)"
** See answer to above...

"Which Candidate is a racist?"
** Just ANOTHER liberal attempt to redirect AWAY from the point... which is that B. HUSSEIN OBAMA is a HIMSELF A RACIST, and a MARXIST!!!





MDoggg @9:17AM: Still whining...

"But Bush was the incumbant who mangaged to declare Code Red every few months..."

Whaa, whaa, whaa.....

Dig pretty deep for that one, didn't you??

I'm pretty sure that I already told you that you were DISMISSED!!!!

You've have NOTHING of worth to post that I recall.. Don't bother me anymore!!!

If I post something you don't like, too bad, just ignore it!!!!

Insufferable ignorance abounds

with mdogg and the other limited liberal idiots...

To Redlac
"Bush promised a short war at a low cost, and delivered a long one at a much higher cost."

There is a measure of truth in your posting.

However...
Welcome to history. Very few wars have turned out as short and easy as one side or the other estimated. Witness our own War for Independence, the Civil War (President Lincoln's blunders in strategic meddling were phenomenol and repeated), the Spanish-American War (see the Filipino Insurgency), WW1 (the French were going to be home 'before the leaves fell'), WW2 (what did the German public believe was going to happen?), Korea (see the fate of our first effort to 'sort out' the NK invasion), Vietnam.
The Boer War, the Frontier Wars in India, the French Revolutionary Wars, the War of the Spanish Succession (ask Louis XIV how his plan fared). The *Pelopponesian War* for goodness sake.

If President Bush erred in 'promising a short war' (I seem to recall him cautioning that it would be a long struggle), then others erred just as badly in allegedly believing it (see also: Congressional majority).

Mismanagement or mis-estimation in wartime deserves notice and criticism. Pretending that its never happened before, that it's never been worse, is simply foolish.
Pretending that any *necessary or justified* war must a priori be a short, easy one is also silly.


Anne
MoronDog was born an Imbecile. Drug Addled, Leftover Hippies taught him their CHERISHED LIBERAL VALUES in college: Lying, Cheating, Cowardice, Intoxication, etc.

Tail2long
Just as you say that there is a measure of truth in what redlac writes, there is also a ameasure of truth in what you say. For example you say: "Very few wars have turned out as short and easy as one side or the other estimated." Quite true, but we really should have learned lessons from the events you list. All those who didn't are responsible.

More importantly, you write: "Mismanagement or mis-estimation in wartime deserves notice and criticism. Pretending that its never happened before, that it's never been worse, is simply foolish."

When incompetence reaches a certain level, it becomes more than just a war time mistake, it becomes criminal negligence. The decisions of the Bush administration in proposing the war, propagandizing for its initiation, alienating allies, planning for the aftermath, initially ignoring Petraeus, and refusing to admit to or deal with the insurgency rise to a level far above "mistakes".

To Jack
"All those who didn't are responsible."

Well, all those who had the ability to influence the issue are responsible, yes. Which is why it never ceases to amaze me that the 'I Hate Bush' crowd refuse to display the moral backbone to deal with their own congressmen who knowingly voted to give President Bush an effective 'blank check'. They can't even plead ignorance: many of their constituents concluded (rightly or wrongly) even before the vote was held that passing the force resolution would inevitably lead to war.

"When incompetence reaches a certain level, it becomes more than just a war time mistake, it becomes criminal negligence."

Very true. The question becomes 'What level must it reach'? If President Bush's putative incompetence has reached the level of criminal negligence, then I would submit that the same must be concluded about many if not most of our wartime presidents... and some peacetime ones as well. President Kennedy's handling of Cuba springs to mind.


Tail2long
I agree substantially with one of your points, i.e. that many of those who bought into the Bush propaganda program have not been held responsible. Of course, many have been held responsible as well.

But I disagree that Bush's incompetence shouldn't be judged more harshly than that of other leaders. First off, Bush had, or should have had, better fact gathering and more history upon which to base a decision. And he had an incomparable military and virtually every military advantage.

Bush basically mismanaged the Yankees in a game against the local little league team.

I consider the most culpable previous president to be Johnson. Kennedy's handling of Cuba cost us nothing.




Jack
Agreed.

Your 11:45 posting's last paragraph clearly describes the administration's bungling on Iraq.

To Jack
"First off, Bush had, or should have had, better fact gathering and more history upon which to base a decision. And he had an incomparable military and virtually every military advantage. "

Hmmm.
Well, given our intel failures and the significant drawdown of humint funding and capability of the last several decades, I would submit that several past presidents likely had at least as effective strategic intel as President Bush had. And I'm not sure why having, let's say, 3142 years of historical example is so much better than having a mere 3000 years of historical example.

As for our military -- of which I am a part -- I would say that armies carefully trained and equipped for one style of war (ie: conventional war) generally find it very challenging to make full use of their skills and strengths in other forms (ie: unconventional war). And there has probably never been a time when the methods and weapons available to unconventional fighters are more dissimilar to those of conventional war than they are right now.

As for Pres Johnson and Pres Kennedy... who was in office during the Bay of Pigs? I figure that act was the absolute threshold beyond which the relationship between the U.S. and Cuba simply could not be resolved by peaceful means.
Sure, it might have been unlikely before the Bay of Pigs... but there is nothing like sponsoring an invasion to burn your diplomatic bridges.
Alternatively, Pres Kennedy might, by dedicating the full resources promised and planned for, have been able to bring about the success of the initial invasion and thus opened the possibility of eventual success in wresting Cuba away from Castro's regime.

But President Kennedy made the absolute worst compromise available -- he did his enemy a SMALL injury (which Machiavelli knew to be folly centuries ago).

to MDogggg
"This unhappy twin is compelled to attack other people's parents "

When you stooped to insult in your very first post ("bloated old bag") you pretty much relinquished the moral high ground when it comes to personal insult and attack.

The best you can do now is try to humiliate the other guy because he stoops just as low as you. Which is an implicit admission of your own failing.

MoronDog
Mor Lies and Propositioning OTHER MEN!

What a Liberal Prototype! LMAO!

WHAT???
Robert Wrote:
Bush took a long time to change a failed course and that "time" not only cost him his presidency, but it cost 2-3000 Americans their lives

Robert

Um, excuse me, but how did it cost him his presidency? I think his presidency was terminated by a constitutional amendment, not the war.

Or did he lose in 2004 and I just failed to notice?
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.