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
Friday, November 10, 2006
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
A double thumping
by Mike Gallagher
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?


Like many Americans, I’m really angry. It was bad enough to watch Republicans fall like dominoes this week. Hearing liberal Democrats claim that the election was all about the war when they didn’t offer a single alternative plan was infuriating.

But receiving the knock-out punch of Donald Rumsfeld being fired the day after the Democratic Party windfall election is making a lot of us about as mad as we’ve been in a long, long time.

I’m doing my best to try and understand what message my president is trying to send us. Last week, he told reporters that the Defense Secretary would be in place until the very final day of the president’s term. Turns out, that wasn’t true at all – we now know that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld made the decision “a few weeks ago.” Yesterday, the president admitted to lying to the reporters with a mischievous grin. While I’m not going to shed any tears for some Associated Press reporter being given wrong information, I wonder why a simple “no comment” wouldn’t have been a better answer last week. At least we would have been spared watching this honorable man try and explain why he didn’t tell the truth.

And I suppose people can understand how reluctant the president was to appear to make Rumseld’s dismissal look like a political move. But isn’t firing him the day after the mid-term election just as political? Let’s face it; President Bush is giving Democrats just what they demanded: Don Rumsfeld’s head on a platter.

It’s disgusting.

I guess I just don’t understand politics. I try too hard to establish right from wrong. I want to hold true to my values and principles. I don’t understand why President Bush or Karl Rove would give a rat’s rear end about what Democrats would think about the decision to go in another direction with the Secretary of Defense.

And here’s the reason for my anger: If the decision to remove Rumsfeld came a few weeks ago, I wonder how many Republicans would have been able to hold on to their jobs if he had left then?

Every single poll suggested that the GOP would lose the House and maybe the Senate. They were right. As this campaign season was nearing the election, our president decided it was time for another Defense Secretary. Fine. So how about throwing a lifeline to George Allen or Rick Santorum? If this election was, indeed, about America’s dissatisfaction with the direction of the war, don’t you think that a number of these razor-thin victories by Democrats might have gone the other way if Rumsfeld had stepped down a few weeks ago?

Of course they would have. It couldn’t have hurt. Instead, we’re now left with a bunch of good Republicans like J.D. Hayworth being voted out of office and Rumsfeld being sent packing the day after the mid-term anyway.

I support and admire George W. Bush. I support this war and frankly, don’t think the mid-term was about dissatisfaction with this effort. Conservatives feel abandoned over issues like illegal immigration and out-of-control spending.

And I feel abandoned by my party when I see a defense secretary thrown out to the curb the day after the Democrats’ “thumping.”

We all worked too hard during this campaign season to see this happen and not feel angry. The stakes are high, the downside too great.

Now we’ll be treated to a couple of years of gloating Democrats who will raise our taxes, give amnesty to illegals, and, God forbid, wave the white flag of surrender in Iraq.

I know that many of my colleagues are putting up a brave front. They’re spinning this by suggesting that this will all energize the base. Trust me; what they’re saying privately is not quite what they’re saying publicly.

And I, for one, won’t play that game.

We blew it. And I’m furious.

I know I’m not alone.

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

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Rumsfeld
should have been gon two years ago, but who's counting. I had enough of him when he snubbed Shinseki and canned the Crusader gun project, then tried to cut the Army by two active duty divisions (thank God that Wolfowitz talked him out of that!!)

Thank you Mr. Gallagher for your
astute words. I personally had wondered the exact same thing, although I was not aware that President Bush had said that Donald Rumsfield would not be leaving until the end of his term.
I also am angry at conservative voters who made the choice to stay home and not vote just because they wanted to "send a message" to all those Republican congressional members who failed to implement conservative actions while in office. So great, now look what we have instead!

Bush is **not** an "honorable man"
I don't have visceral loathing for George W. Bush as I did (and do) for Bill Clinton. But Bush isn't an honorable man. In his indifference to the well-being and wishes of the American people regarding the nation-destroying subject of mass immigration, HE IS EVIL.

Here are pertinent excerpts from two blog entries at Lawrence Auster's website, View From the Right:

1. "Slowly but surely, immigration is transforming America. The small, Southern towns that existed until 30 years ago have been engulfed in a tidal wave of unchecked immigration, coupled with the new immigrants’ studied indifference to America’s past. It is a recipe for disaster, a tragedy made more serious by this president and his acolytes who see no great damage in the loss of our past and our traditions."

(http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006724.htm)

2. "George W. Bush is a true believer in amnesty for illegal aliens, at least for Mexicans, and perhaps in some sort of EU-style shotgun marriage of Canada, the United States and Mexico as well. For reasons that beg for psychoanalysis (although from knowing the Texas milieu that produced Mr. Bush I have some speculations), President Bush loves Mexicans. I think on balance he sees the average Mexican as in some moral sense superior to the average American, more genuine in some inchoate way. My impression is that, in his heart of hearts, he likes them better than he likes us. When he says “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande river,” he is speaking from his heart. That he is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the welfare of Mexicans, does not faze him. The amnesty/guest worker program is President Bush’s lodestar, the legacy he sincerely wants to leave America. In the teeth of all the evidence, he believes that we would be better for it and it’s just the right thing to do. It is more important to him than Iraq, so important that he jettisoned the GOP’s best chance to hold on to the Congress rather than back away from it."

(http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006715.htm)

I think Bush, now close to getting the enormous amnesty he's been slavering over, will go down as the President who destroyed America as a first-world nation.

Election postmortem excercise's
The tragedy of Bush's second term is that his true liberal, globalist tendencies have become all too apparent. In the aftermath of the election debacle, conservatives are debating whether a Reagan Revolution can be replanted in a centrist Republican Party gone adrift under President Bush's mismanagement. Beginning with the nomination of Harriet Miers, the president proceeded to insult and ignore his conservative base. The miscalculations in Bush's second term are too many to mention:
**When confronted by national security concerns over the decision to allow Dubai Ports to manage U.S. ports, President Bush threatened to use his first veto to block any legislation that would bar the deal because of security concerns.
**The decision to allow Condi Rice to be secretary of state, agreeing to follow her advice to let the EU-3 and the IAEA negotiate with Iran. What did Bush achieve? Two years later, Iran is defying the international community, enriching uranium on the way to a nuclear weapons program. Even worse, six additional Muslim nations in the Middle East have decided to go nuclear themselves in fear of Iran.
**Instead of securing the borders, Bush continues to push for "comprehensive immigration reform," despite the strong argument by conservatives that a guest-worker program will amount to an amnesty under another name. How can President Bush seriously argue we are waging a war against terrorism.
**Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee has no choice now but to admit that his famous "ground game" is pathetically insufficient when the Republican Party abandons the principle of governing as conservatives resulting in the very large (35%) christian conservatives voting block of the Republican base abandoning them...Jerome R. Corsi

It didn't take long for President Bush to capitulate to the demands of the newly empowered Dhimmicrats by pulling the rug out from under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps Bush genuinely fears he is their next target ? that impeachment hearings and investigations are coming. Maybe they are. If so, Bush just signaled weakness by dispensing of Rumsfeld. When the sharks smell blood in the water, it makes them more aggressive, not less. Why Bush is intimidated by the Dhimmicrats now is beyond me. He has nothing to fear from them any more. They have already taken away his base of support in the Congress. He is a lame duck with only two more years to serve in the White House. Why not stand up to the Dhimmicrats now? What does he have to lose? ....Joseph Farah

Bad politics
One of the problems few Republicans seem to address is that George W. Bush is not a politician. He's a business man with a Harvard MBA. He's the only US president EVER to hold the coveted Harvard MBA.

That means that he looks at things differently than a Kerry or Pelosi or Rove who are political creatures through and through. Bush HATES the politics of the job, hates the "politician" part of the job description. I can't say I blame him, having to deal with the slime like Kennedy, Schumer and Pelosi.

That doesn't mean Bush handled Rumsfeld the right way. Rumsfeld did good work. He was hired to revamp the Pentagon. He also got nailed with the WOT/Islamofascist War. For all that, Bush threw him under the bus for reasons only Bush knows (and he's not talking).

Now we get another Bush 41 re-tread. Nothing will change under Gates. He only has 2 years, then he'll be canned. His main credential is that he's smart.

If you didn't like Rumsfeld, wait until you see a SecDef with San Francisco values that a Democrat president appoints.

Horse trading - no impeachment
While Nancy Pelosi had said impeachment was off the table, John Conyers had looked forward with anticipation to impeaching Bush after assuming the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.

Suddenly, Rumsfeld is gone, while Conyers has backed off the impeachment threat.

It's a done deal...and I think it's just that simple.

Perhaps now we'll double the number of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and finally take out the trash.

Two years of gridlock under dem control of the house and senate will be the dem's problem in '08, after running out the clock between '04 and '06 with their incessant whining, name-calling, and obstructionism. They can waste their moment in the sun investigating anyone remotely related to the
White House...or try to accomplish something.


Mehlman, Rumsfeld & "The Deal"
According to Fox News last night, Mehlman is "stepping down" (i.e., "has been canned") as GOP national committee chairman, effective January 1. There's no word on his likely replacement, but I'm betting on Rick Santorum, who ran a fairly good campaign that might have won in another political season. Another possibility would be J. Kenneth Blackwell, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, who was also credited with good campaigning in spite of the prevailing environment.

Rumsfeld's departure was pretty much pre-ordained as far back as last fall (2005). The major reason being that he never listened to his generals- the active-duty ones. As Tom Clancy once observed (in "The Sum Of All Fears"), yes, he owns the force, but a smart CO listens even if he disagrees with the analysis. Rumsfeld will go down in history as another Robert MacNamara- a "hyper-engineering" type who unfortunately didn't understand actual war-fighting as well as he thought he did. Both tried to fight a war on the cheap. Both failed. However, I don't expect things to improve because he's gone; the policies likely to come out of the new Congress will probably be even more unrealistic.

And as for any "deal" where the President trades Rumsfeld for a guarantee of no impeachment;

Ha.

Ha.

Ha.

Have you ever seen a pod of mako sharks when they smell blood in the water? The Democrats will make them look like goldfish. The Koslings want blood, and the Democrats' leaders owe them.
Don't expect rationality to break out anytime soon.

cheers

eon

wishy washy
The most important facts that must not be overlooked whenever we discuss what is wrong with Washington politics is: 1. Regardless of what you believe, where you stand politically, or what you have determined or committed to be or do when you get there, if you intend to remain as you really are - you will not be able to do it. 2. Nothing is done in the House or Senate or in the White House unless you compromise. Nothing has been accomplished through the years - even the Reagan years - without compromising your position or beliefs. Every now and then a man like Reagan comes along that is able to "deal" with people who wanted to force him to compromise, but he was a better "dealer" than anyone else in DC and that made what he did great! (Facts in evidence. Anyone, who I have known through the last 40 years, who was elected to public office in the national political scheme has ALWAYS moved from right-wing-conservative positions and standards to the LEFT. Some became moderates, some became centrists, some went further left than that.)
Am I angry - you better believe it!
George Bush was a wishy washy man to begin with. He arrived in DC with half a mandate - the front half with nothing to follow it and very little knowledge of how to be tough, scrappy, and how to have backbone.
Conservatives all ramped up their fiefdoms, their importance, their positions, their dreams, and a willingness to "get along" with those who were set down a step.
Where were those who would tear down the rotting policies in our government? Where were those who would pour the 'new' foundation? Where were those who were going to set the world on fire and burn up the fallacious nonesense of the Ted Kennedy types? Where is the heavy duty 'heaven and earthmoving equipment" when we needed it?
America is my country and those of us who were born here or some of us who came here legally and became citizens by legal means are a part of this great nation.
EVERY ONE ELSE is trying to destroy what is sacred to me and thereby is my enemy! If we grant ILLEGAL immegrants the right to become Americans there will be hell to pay. I want to be armed and ready - an I will be.
NO ONE STEALS MY COUNTRY FROM ME AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!
If we do this, we put to death the laws of right and wrong, and we will have lawlessness to a degree that we have never seen it in the USA.
It looks like the nonsensical ideology that we can "all get along" has proven to be the beautifully wrapped box of manure that it has been all the time.

Republican Defeat - No Brainer
Republicans are licking their wounds, scratching their heads, walking in circles, knee jerking, finger pointing, and wondering what happened? Duh....
The answer does not require a committee of political hacks to sort it out...the people have been announcing the problem loud and clear for a couple years...now the arrogant, self-confident, deaf, weak power structure will pay the piper.

In short, conservatives have been betrayed!

Republican candidates in 2004 campaigned on conservative principles...were sent to Washington and did the opposite...ignoring conservative fiscal, social, and moral principles, developed a spineless approach to everything, grew blinders to reality, stuck their head in the sand, and took a "thumpin".

Is there a lesson to be learned in all this.....?

Aside from the obvious disaster for republicans, will "throwing the incumbent leaders out" offer future hope for America and military retirees and veterans? We'll see where Democratic leadership steers the ship, but if their actions and pursuits of recent years is any indicator, military retirees, spouses, widows, and veterans should see significant improvement in earned health care and other benefits. Outherwise, conservatives may be in mourning for quite some time.




Mike, you are wrong
Repubs lost because they abandoned the values the espoused in 94. This didn't happen recently, it started right after taking a licking over a government shutdown during the clinton administration. Instead of doing the right thing, they tried to find favor with the leftist media. Now they know favor is not possible for repubs (well, everyone but McCain...he will prefer to learn in '08).

As for firing Rummy. I was sad to see him go, but with only two years left to get on the right track, it was probably a smart move to demonstrate a willingness to make drastic changes. I would imagine even Rummy knew it was time.

As for the timing of Rummy, it would have been catastrophic had Bush done it a month or two ago. It would have been played as a political move by a desperate president to stop the bleeding of a failed administration. Instead of a forced hand, Bush showed that he is above politics.

Mike is right!
Thanks Mike for putting so well what many of us were thinking. Why fire Rumsfeld now when you could've announced it before the election and perhaps saved some seats? Yeah, it would've been viewed as purely political, but so what? All you've done is given Dems reason to believe they can push for more resignations, and whose to say Bush won't capitulate then, too? I am sorely disappointed, and believe this was a bonehead move by a guy who wants to make nice w/the Dems in order to pass legislation that will give him a legacy beyond the War on Terror, however disastrous (amnesty) that legislation might be for the rest of us. As far as a deal to fire Rumsfeld in exchange for no impeachment, such a deal would have to be made under the notion you can actually trust the spineless worms on the other side.

Eon
I seriously doubt that Tom Clancy is considered an expert in military affairs (I know he fancies himself one)- he still pissed about the Commies falling (took most of his material away). Clancy dreams for the good ol' days when the military was nothing more than window dressing. He didn't agree with the first Gulf War, and he much preferred a World in which the "realist" ran things. Of course those realists gave us the infamous 1991 Iraqi Cease Fire, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, Adid's Somalia, and AQ.

If you wish to find a scapegoat- turn no farther then President Bush. It was his idea to build a democracy before the insurgents were dealt with; it was his idea to delay the invasion 5 months in order to placate the French; and it was his idea to ignore Iran and Syrian intervention into Iraq these last 3 years.

Republicans
I never thought I would see the day when the Democrats could get "to the right" of the Republicans, but they did. It is time for our own version of the "Night of the Long Knives".

What makes me angry
I am angry that the dems are talking co-operation when from Bush's first term they opposed absolutely everything he wanted. They declared him an illegitimate president for the first term than declared that for the second term that they should be co-presidents since he won by a narrow margin. With dicipline, all dems voted against anything proposed and now they talk co-operation. This attitude in time of war is beyond belief.

Face Facts
I love watching holier than thou Republicans squirming about loss ... some whine, some moan, some put on the tough guy face, some sit bolt upright and glare. None quite get the picture. Whatever it was that drove people to go out and cast votes against your Party's candidates, it had nothing to do with "alienating your base" or "people sitting on their hands". Close to record numbers of people came out to vote in this election. Nobody stayed at home, it's just that an awful lot of folks who are neither rabid conservatives nor howling-at-the-moon liberals, but a somewhat twisted mixture of both (and not always on the same issues) ... which, by the way, is what MOST folks are ... can smell a pile of manure that has grown rotten from being entrenched in power for too long. The stink was mighty, whether you want to admit it or not ... and the tide that rose up to wash it away took some honorable folks along with the flotsam.

I mean, whether any of these things actually happened or not (and a whole lot of them not only happened, but we haven't even begun to figure out the depth of the corruption involved), the American people said enough is enough: playing footsie with high school kids, and looking the other way, all the while preaching about "moral values"; taking bribes, direct or covert, to influence legislation; cozying up with criminals and criminal elements; taking boatloads of trips to exotic places at taxpayer expense; favoring narrow special interests who already have favored status; open and covert association with gambling, alcohol and drug interests; and supporting projects to rebuild devastated areas that rebuild nothing but profit those winning no-bid contracts who have clear connections to those in power.

That's why Republicans lost.

What Happened?
As a cub scout I realized that I was not a joiner. Something happens when a group gets together. Bad such as mob actions and good such as the rescue in New Orleans. I had hopes that the Reagan leagacy could be continued but look at what group think did. First shock the play with Ted Kennedy on education and the money wasted. Then the RNC/Buch support of Arlen Specter for re-election. The aftermath of leaving him on the Judicary comittee. Trent Lott and his caving in the senate.Dick Cheney should have been voting on every bill. As for John McCain, well every one knew that he didn't like Bush because he defeated him. Did anyone with a brain beleive he would act in any way for the good of the country.
No support for Rick Santoriam, no support for guarding our borders the stealth move to make the middle of America open and availabe to attacks( see Nafta super highway.
I could go on, but I would rather see principles go down in defeat than this idea of moderation is the only way of getting things done. Look at what laws have passed and tell me that no action
would have been just as good.

Double Thumping
Celtic-Dragon

With all due respect your comments indicate that your knowledge of matters military is non-existant.

I served in an Army Artillery fire direction center in the late 50's but as early as WW I the impractibility of extremely heavy artillery became obvious. Too big, too many people required to serve the piece and too many support personnel required to maintain and provide logistics for such a gun. In WW I the Germans used these super cannons to terror shell Paris. Rate of fire was too slow to be truly effective to do other than to deliver a very large round that while very powerful, served as little more than a propaganda weapon.

During my service we had the 3.2 heavy mortar, 105 and 155 howitzers, the 270 "Atomic Cannon" and the Honest John rocket. While the mortar and howitzers were very effective in that time and place because they were relatively light and mobile the larger weapons were relatively useless because of size and lack of mobility. I did fire missions with all of these weapons but the Honest John was not very accurate and the Atomic Cannon never fired an atomic round except in testing and were removed from the inventory as more reliable missiles and air delivered ordinance was developed.

The Crusader was a marvelously accurate long range self propelled track mounted weapon but its weight made it impractical to put in place and use effectively especially since air delivered ordinance was both accurate and more easily brought into play. In short, it as a marvelous dinosaur before it was fully developed and despite the objections of the old bulls in the military, was rightfully abandoned.

My son has been in Army special operations for the past 24-years. He earned the coveted black beret of the Army Ranger Battalion and was the youngest Ranger to parachute into Grenada. General Arbazaid was his first company commander. He later made the transition from Ranger Battalion to Special Forces (Green Berets) and then applied for and was accepted into Army aviation training. Last year he was recognized as the Army aviation Instructor Pilot of the year. He is the first junior aviator to be accepted in the elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment where he now serves as a mission planner and flight lead. Lately he has been conducting operations with SEAL team six. Since 9/11 he has logged more combat days than any other member of the Special Operations community (900 days and counting) in the world. His almost continuous service in combat special operations since 9/11 cost him his 16-year marriage He was not pleased when your hero, General Shinseki made the brilliant moral building move of authorizing the coveted Black Beret of the Rangers to be worn by cooks, truck drivers and behind the lines office workers. The once honored Black Beret is now referred to as the "Monica." Thankfully, Shinseki is no longer in the Army. He was rightfully fired for his vocal and public opposition to his Commander-in Chief. Remember MacArthur?

The plans to cut 2 Divisions were made because the military was planning to and still is working on expanding our Special Forces organizations on the order of two or three times. In January of this year the Marines activated their first Special Operations company with another to follow. Rangers, SEALs, Army Delta, and the 160th Special Oerations Aviation Regiment (Night Stalkers) are well into an expansion program however, elite covert military units are not built overnight. Although it may hurt your feelings Celtic-Dragon, The military does not share their organizational plans with the general public, particularly their plans for reorganization of clandestine units.

I haven't had a chance to discuss the recent election with my son because he is off to some part of the world to do something dangerous but I am sure that no one in our military is particularly happy that their reorganizational plans will, no doubt, be severely hampered by the loss of both houses of congress to the libera/socialists. I guess we get the government we deserve but I fear for my six grandchildren.



It's a self serving move!!!
He will be the left's lap dog from here on out. Just to save his own, worthless skin. He has never had the best interests of the common man at heart, and he never ever will. He was put in the Whitehouse to serve globalist, multi-national business interests, and that's it!

He's not using the blood of our young men and women to fight for the protection of our nation, and our people. He is using them to fight terrorist threats to his multi-national corporate interests.

Why else would he expend so much blood and treasure in the middle east, and yet, leave our boarders completely open and unprotected?

I didn't vote for the little weasel in 2000, because I didn't trust him, or republiCANTS. I only voted for him in '04 because the democRATS had the unmittigated gaul to run Hanoi John.

As a Marine Veteran of the Vietnam War, who joined the military and went to a foriegn land to fight the enemies of my nation. I and many fools like me, put our lives on the line to defend our cherished "American" way of life (as did my Father in WWII, and Korea). For what?!?! to have it given over to a bunch of people who could care less about the United States of America, and the sacrifices of so many that have come before to make it great. I am totally disgusted with this entire nation!!

DON'T GREET ME ON VETERANS DAY AND GIVE ME SOME PHONEY "THANK YOU". I'LL SPIT IN YOUR EYE AND TELL YOU TO KISS MY BUTT!!!

This country does not deserve the sacrifices of those who have fought to preserve it, and George W. Bush does not deserve to be President!

Stop the Whining
In the 14 comments above me, there is a uniform theme of whining (except for a couple of the gloaters). Recognize that the libs have run a "Hes not MY President" bumper sticker for the last 6 years. Now I am hearing "it's not MY fault" from this bunch of wusses who posted earlier.

As Republicans, WE brought this down on ourselves. So only WE can fix it. So get back on your feet. The 2008 election starts NOW. We need a good replacement for Mehlman (I think he did OK; he got let down by idiots like Ohio's Bennett who gave away the state because he didn't have enough backbone to stand up to Taft, DeWine, and Moaning George Voinovich. So let's get some party leaders who are even MORE conservative, and let's go after 2008.

Rumsfeld's replacement as SecDef
First, a deep breath. The substitution of Robert Gates for Donald Rumsfeld is not any kind of change in strategy by George W. Bush. Rumsfeld could only look forward to endless investigative committee meetings and hearings, none of which were intended to clarify the objectives and shortcomings of the global tracking and neutralization of the Islamic fascist threat. The Dem'crats ALREADY know the threat that Islamic fascist terrorism poses to America and the rest of the world, they just don't care. They are perfectly willing to trade whatever military and economic advantage we now have over the terrorist element, for the opportunity to consolidate and reinforce their own hold on power here in the US. They have joined in, and shall continue to maintain, the effort to "negotiate" with the terrorist elements, just as if they were a real representation of a sane and rational ideology.

But even less than the Soviet Union and international Communism, these are not sane and rational people upon whose word we may depend, and will keep agreements they sign only as long as it remains entirely one-way to their benefit. If agreement involves simply signing away real estate and bundles of cash, that's easy. We got a LOT of real estate available to be given away, and as for cash, we can always raise that through the magic money machine here in America, because we are exporting cash all the time anyway.

But some day, there will be no real estate to be traded away, and no cash to appease the endlessly voracious appetite of an ideology that is driven by True Believers.

Oh yeah
I almost forgot ... Americans rejected Republicans because they are tired of lies. Everything in my previous post was lied about until things began to unravel. But lying about Iraq is at the forefront, and Iraq itself is another albatross around Republican necks. It took a while, but the majority of Americans ... united in their desire to punish those who attacked us on 9/11 and to eliminate (or at least reduce) the threat of terror ... now recognize that we are in Iraq on false pretenses. They know the President and his Party lied about why we went there, lied about what we were doing there, lied about what we were going to do, and lied (and continue lying) about how well we were (and are) doing. This has nothing to do with the intelligence, skill, courage or bravery of our soldiers; it has nothing to do with the upper echelons of military command who have honorably followed the orders given by their civilian Commanders ... but it has everything to do with those civilian commanders, and their bungling efforts to test a new theory of neo-conservative assertiveness.


I completely agree with Paul
regarding Bush and illegal immigration. I used to think he was one of the best Presidents we ever had until illegal immigration. He's a complete sellout to the American public and will go down in history as the man who completely destroyed America. These politicians make me sick. I guess they're all lying, self-serving people. Bush is a total disappointment.

loco, here's why ...
Loco wrote, "I am angry that the dems are talking co-operation when from Bush's first term they opposed absolutely everything he wanted."

Why are the Dems talking "cooperation"? Because they know that Republicans are saps. The Dems will extract concessions (Donald Rumsfeld's firing is no doubt one) and then will give NONE.

There will be all sorts of incredulity and indignation and sputtering of, "But ... but ... you promised," from the hapless Republicans who believe those representations (despite a history replete with instances of betrayal), whereupon the Dems will come up with some trumped up reason why the deal is off. It will be specious, but it will be there for the media and lefty blogosphere to pick and run with for them.

Mark my words.

Rumsfeld cost the election
When a group of retired U.S. Generals told the President earlier this year that Rumsfeld had to go they were ignored. Generals do not take such steps lightly: they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops. After that embarassing affair, Rumsfeld should have immediately resigned. You cannot possibly command the U.S. Armed Forces when the top brass think you're incompetent. But his arrogance got the better of him, he overstayed whatever welcome he had enjoyed at the Pentagon, the war continued to go badly. Lacking any new ideas the only path was "stay the course". The American people have demanded a new course in Iraq for a very long time. Politicians had better realize who calls the shots in this country and what happens when the people are ignored.


WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE MIKE
To realize George W. is not the honorable man that you think he is, simply the way and the timing that he handed Rumsfeld his walking papers makes it quite clear. George W. sold his holy soul to the devil in hopes up trying to avoid impeachment hearings and with hopes of trying to try to finish off his remaining two years with as few headaches as possible. But i have a feeling that even if he canned his entire cabinet, what he is about to go through for the next two years will be enough to make him wish that he could just spend his days shoveling horse crap on his ranch in Texas. This week the people made their feeling be known loud and clear that they were fed up with Washington politics, and if this would of been a Presidential election and the people had a choice they would of voted for Elmer Fudd before putting George W. back in office. The last time this country was in this much turmoil Bush 41 was in office, there is no doubt a pattern exist here within the Bush camp, and unfortunate for Jeb Bush, thanks to daddy and big brother his chances of ever being elected President are about as likely as seeing Osama Bin Laden walking down Main street USA. Buy the way just for the record, the above statements are not coming from a anti Bush mentality, 41 and 43 received my vote's three times, but as someone mentioned above the Bush family are businessmen first, and being a politician comes in a far distant second place. Most Americans would agree that Corporate America has been pulling the strings in Washington for the past six years, and Georgie 43 was the head puppet who looked the other way and allowed and allowed Corporate America to take over Washington DC. Whether you consider it good or bad, this week Americans let their anger and disgust with Washington DC politics show, and the people who hold the "power of the vote" decided Heads Need To Roll, and in deed they did.

hntr admin
http://www.headsneedtoroll.org

You're not alone
None of us are happy about the results. But the Republicans abandoned the conservative core a long time ago. And about gloating democrats: up to now I've always read the liberal posts here more thoroughly than the conservatives, to get an idea what the "enemy" is thinking. No more. If you've got nothing constructive to say, I've got no time to read it.

Bad Actors
Bad actors are rife in both parties...are we going to have to chose between the lesser of two evils? The Democrats in Minnesota elected a Muslim to the House...everyone who knows anything about Islam knows his first allegiance is to the Koran, not to the American Constitution. What about Barney Frank and his brothel? What about Jefferson and his freezer full of money? What about Harry Reid and his foul smelling real estate deal? Because the ultra liberal media never talks about the short-comings of the Democrats, we don't hear much about those egregious displays of greed and corruption. Does the America public realize how much power it has ceded to the media? What a feeling of euphoria it must have had the day after the election to know how influential is was. The left has absolute power over the print and airways...our only hope is that absolute power corrupts, and people will wake up to the brainwashing they have been receiving.

CAF . . .
I spent some time in the field artillery, in combat. You are absolutely correct regarding the larger pieces.

The 155 MM was the workhorse (when I was in the Army), but we also had 8" and 175 MM guns. The 175 MM's made a big splash but were slow and heavy, not a good thing during the monsoon seasons.

My second tour took me to a 105 MM battalion. A higher rate of fire, it was an anti-personnel weapon mostly. The generals liked it because it was easily air-mobile.

Bigger, in artillery, is not necessarily better.

As CAF pointed out, the airborne gun platforms are much more mobile and mission-flexible. There's still a need for cannon artillery, though.

Just another...
finger in the eye to the base who elected him. Tie his hands with political correctness to pacify the MSM and the bleeding hearts and then blame him because you can`t win wars that way. Well I for one will laugh if the dhimmicrats do inpeach him. They wont though, he is one of them!

Double Thumping
I support the war...now. We have to win. But, didn't any of the old guys see the similarity to Vietnam? No clear mission. Political instead of military goals. No exit stategy. No "connection" to america strategic interest [now see why Bush 1 did not remove Saddam as a barrier to Iran?] And, now obviously, the need to address the concerns of the american voters? It happened to Johnson and Nixon. Rumsfield was a cookie cutter of McNamara..same personality and approach.

Rumsfield lost the cofidence of the military a long time ago. It took confrontation on the part of a line soldier to brng attention to the lack of body armor and protection of vehicles in Iraq. Not one american life is worth Saddam.

Conservatives were not well served for the past few years. We need to listen more to the generals and less to the evangelicals.

Radio Relay,
your post is full of bitterness. I for one, DO THANK the active, reserve, and veteran military for their service to this GREAT country. For you to say that you would spit in my eye and tell me to kiss your butt is just shameful. I plan to go to the cemetery on Saturday, Veterans Day, to honor the memory of my father who served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam while giving 26 years of Army service to the freedoms Americans so enjoy. I am profoundly grateful for these freedoms.

Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered

.....Mike...

.....the evolution of a Bush voter...
.....optimism... puzzlement... uneasiness... skeptimism... p*ssed off... disdain... dislike... contempt...

.....I thought I was voting for Ronald Reagan but he turned out to be Lyndon Johnson...

.....now we are faced with a lame duck President... a Marxist/Liberal Legislature....a silent invasion of our Country across an open border... and a pending Amnesty Bill in the not to distant future that will be the end of this country as we have known it...

..... the first priority for all conservatives must be to kill any Amnesty Bill that is sure to be introduced in Congress by whatever means possible...whether it be by Filibuster... impeachment... or riots in the streets... the future of our Country is at stake..... COLOSSUS

Lies & Honor
Mike, No man who lies is honorable, and that includes George W. Bush

I heard today
that the total vote difference in the country, you know the vote that put Dem's in charge of the Congress, was 78,000 (give or take a few).

78 thousand in the whole damn country.

If President Bush never had a mandate, then surely the Democrats don't, and this is hardly a "loud and clear" message from anyone to anyone.

Not that I expect the left to be anything but lordly and dictatorial in their "plans" for the future of the country.

please...........
your party should be angry. they were incompetent in governing. they are corrupt and deviants. they don't represent the majority opinion. hopefully, for the well being of the country they will never hold power again.

Mike, you almost nailed it
I can't say it better than you did, Mike, with one glaring exception. I am having great difficulty supporting the "honorable man" and his actions. I listened to the news conference on Wednesday and our president couldn't have performed worse. Admitting to a lie to an attack-media reporter, admitting to his hope that now he can pass migration reform with a demoCRAP controlled congress, and tossing rummy all in one sitting was almost to much to bear. And the question from another attack-media reporter that burned into my soul when he "asked" the leader of our party if this election didn't demonstrate that he'd lost touch with America. No, No, No, I imagined as I heard this question but Yes, Yes, Yes, I fear it is true.

The lie to the attack-media reporter was a lie. Ethics are not situational. I agree that he should have said "no comment" but he didn't. He said it himself that when the pressure was on he lied. Has this happened before, will it happen again?

There is an article on the front page of today's paper entitled "Migration reform now has a chance." I'm afraid that the demoCRAP controlled congress and our president will not do this correctly. The invasion of America is underway and looks like it will get a boost.

Don Rumsfeld came to the Pentagon with a mandate for change. He was making good progress when he had to shift his attention to fighting a two-front war. Still he made progress in making the Pentagon and the services more "joint." The worlds most powerful military might became more powerful under Don Rumsfeld as he drove parochial service leaders to interoperate. This made him enemies within and outside the services. But he persisted because it IS the right thing to do. The "honorable man" got thrown under the bus on Wednesday.

Yes Mike, its disgusting. But I don't feel abandoned by my Party, I feel abandoned by my Party's leader.

The Election
At first I blamed the Republicans and Conservatives for the election results, but the more I think about it the more I think that the media deserves the credit for doing just what the had been hoping to do all along: Bash Bush once and for all!

Impeachment
The whole impeachment issue is nonsense, but if the Dems want to move forward with impeachment, let them.

First of all, you can't impeach and convict a President for doing his job in a way you don't like, i.e. policy differences. "High crimes and misdemeanors", baby. It's in the Constitution.

Secondly, they don't have the votes to either impeach or convict. Not gonna happen.

Third, the American people will HATE it if the Dems try -- look at the drubbing the Reps took for impeaching Clinton, who had committed perjury and still wasn't convicted in the Senate.

If they even try it, it's nothing but showboating.

Do you suppose we have left God
and just maybe He is just waiting for us to come back to Him. If you care to read my post, just click my name

Don't throw your pearls to the swine.
President Bush doesn't have to tell the MSM the truth. They act like they're the fourth branch of Government.

Mike,
I like your work and I respect you. I certainly can't say the same thing for George W. Bush. As far as I am concerned he will go down in history as a bigger traitor than Benedict Arnold.


At least he should be remembered that way. Since the academics and the talking heads write the history books he will be applauded as the man who effectively eliminated America as a nation state.


There is nothing honorable about George W. Bush. Mike is wrong on this one.

OK, so the columnists are angry?
You are all angry NOW, but you were nowhere a few months back, when the writing on the wall was really starting to get readable and clear. Not unlike the liberal media with their incessant "right-wing-bashing", "conservative" columnists were all right here gleefully just doing the same in reverse, blindly defending the obvious problems within the Republican party, just bashing away at the libs, toeing the party line. In my view most of you guys are part of the problem with the party; you stooped to the enemy's level rather than championing true conservative ideals, (you know, small government, tax reform, free trade, freedom.) You lost your way by just playing along, dishing out the daily shill no matter what. Your anger NOW does not impress me. So, when you are a little less angry, take a look at yourselves and your role, and decide what will be different heading into '08.

Rumsfeld: I think his resignation should have been accepted when first offered, many months ago. However, it wasn't, and within that context, I think Bush accomplished quite a lot by doing it the day after the elections: He not only took the wind out of a rabid Pelosi's sails with a preemptive action on this, (it was obvious she was going to go after him and force Bush's hand IMMEDIATELY), but he also spared Rummy some dignity, avoiding the process of him being torn limb from limb in made-for-TV Dem-led hearings/lynchings which were sure to come, and which would merely prolong the inevitable. Smart move. Rummy had been there too long, but he is a good man, a great public servant, and personally I'm happy this was handled in the way that it was, the day after.

Okay...
First of all, I already wrote my opinion on Rumsfeld. I'm not going to repeat on multiple threads, but if you want to read:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/default.aspx?mode=post&g=fbfbccb2-6d41-4421-8a53-e5fe96be486b&comments=true

I think this was a questionable move by Bush, but considering Rumsfeld had offered his resignation twice before and Bush asked him to stay on (which some people conveniently forgot to post here) I think he was ready to pass the baton.

While I target the rest of this post towards our liberal supporters, I invite anyone willing to answer the following questions:

1. What's your take on illegal immigration then? Specifically, what happens if/when the "comprehensive" immigration reform is passed, and MILLIONS of illegal aliens are granted amnesty? Do you have your ideas of the possible consequences?

2. What do you see as the table of options for Iraq? And what do you think the risks are for each of those options? I'm curious how some of you can say that packing up and just coming home immediately will magically resolve the issues in Iraq. Maybe for us, definitely not for them.

3. How does government oversight resolve or not resolve the problem? Who do you think would be appointed for the oversight, if you support it?
I ask these questions because the idea of government overseeing itself is not going to give the average person the information they are looking for. It will be passed through the PC filter, which after that will not get the desired results.

I'll post my answers to this as well, but on a separate post.

wailing & gnashing of teeth
Remember 2004? Remember how Bush said "I've got political capital, and I'm a-gonna spend it"? Remember how he preened and strutted while the press fawned and the TV cameras caressed every hair on his chimpy head? Remember how all the hacks on Townhall wrote long, wheezy, gloating sermons about "values" and how Democrats not only lack, but despise them? That is what all of you are paying for now. Here's hoping you don't forget.

Mistaken assumptions
Some seem to think that the Democratic Party, as a result of narrow victories in enough places to give it a relatively slim majority in both Houses of Congress, has claimed (or will claim) a "mandate" to socialize this country. I guess I am not surprised ... this board is made up of a lot of people who read articles written by folks who make their living by demonizing Democrats. But demonization will get us no where (or certainly not to some "where" that we will like).

There most certainly is much to criticize within the Democratic Party. It has proven itself capable of almost the same level of corruption as the Republican Party that has just been evicted from office (I view this as an almost universal perception of "entitlement of the elected" -- those we select to represent us and their staffs often forget that they are there to serve, not take advantage). In attempting to make life "better for everyone", it often overlooks the fact that Americans are, by nature very giving and respectful of privacy, but socially quite conservative and wary of someone who thinks they "deserve" something. It is not a laissez-faire government (but then, neither have been the Republican governments of the past few decades), but it most certainly believes government has all the answers, and is very good as a "top down" management system.

But let's be fair. They did formulate a policy and a platform for this election, and Republicans (particularly those expressing opinions on this board and on talk radio) refused to recognize it. To this day, for example, Mike Gallagher states that they have "no policy" on Iraq. But he and the other arrogant Republicans (and Republican spokespersons) are wrong. Democrats -- whether liberal or conservative (and many Democrats taking seats in Congress are conservative) spoke to insecurities and fears that rise above the fear of terrorism and the fear of immigrants. They spoke to the millions of Americans who are insecure in their jobs, who confront the reality that the wages they earn in those jobs are insufficient, who recognize that their health (and the health of their children) is not secure, who fear that their children are being denied access to higher education as the cost for such an education spirals out of control and interest on loans accelerates, and who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they really are NOT any safer from terrorists just because we are fighting a war in Iraq.

The Democrats have stated they will act on those principles. Let's see if they do! Undoubtedly, there will be a bevy of investigations into a number of activities and events that have transpired over the past six years and which have gone unexplored and unexamined. They have been calling for such investigations all along ... the Republican majority merely exercised its perogative of majority to not conduct such investigations ... and to open them now should not come as a surprise. Let's also see what they do in those invesigations -- how they conduct themselves, how they interpret what they discover, what they choose to do with their findings -- before drawing conclusions. If they allow themselves to be sidetracked from the above identified mission, if they turn things into a witchhunt, then they will be doing us all a disservice. If they uproot misdeeds and scandal, then hopefully we would like to see them offer correction and extract justice. And if they discover errors in judgment or implementation of policy, hopefully they will help us to learn from the mistakes (rather than gloat).

Answers to my questions...
...are available in my blog. Click on my name or the link below if interested:

http://usabeliever.townhall.com

A double thumping Column
To summarize the high points of the article by Mr. Gallagher:

Bush admitted to deciding to fire Rumsfeld weeks ago.

Bush admitted that he deceived reporters regarding Rumsfelds status just prior to the election.

Keeping Rumsfeld was no doubt harmful to the Republicans in the election and the President was well aware of this.

Bush's explanation makes no sense.


Bush wanted the Democrats to win, what other conclusion can there be?

Sad to see you go Rummy
Donald Rumsfeld has served this nation with integrity and,on balance, great success for nearly four decades.
The pained look on this proud man's face tells the story - he cares deeply for this nation and is deeply pained that he is considered to be a failure.
Politics is a mean business. No one can contest that Rumsfeld won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and did so brilliantly. The much overdo transformation of the armed forces into a fast moving and awesome intety hurt some general's feelings but it was the right thing to do and he succeeding magnificently. The childish carping afterword is appalling.
Perhaps it is the state department that has not won the political war on terrorism. So, in need of a scapegoat and a sacrificial lamb to Nancy Pelosi and the MSM - Rumsfeld is let go.
Hopefully we can succeed in Iraq and against terrorism - having seen no tangible plan put forth by the soon-to-be leaders of the House and Senate it is difficult to be optimistic.

Replacement of Rumsfeld
Mike:

The Republican loss was primarily a reaction of to the war in Iraq. In addition to its mishandling of the war itself, the Administration added to the difficulty by the Presidents unconditional support for Rumsfeld during the election just as many republicans (e.g. Michael Steele)were attempting to distance themselves from the Defense Secretary. Secondly, the President's insistence on defending his Iraq policy on the campaign trail had the effect of nationalizing the elections just as the Demorats had hoped to do.

Ironically, those Republicans who were loyal to the President and supported his decision to keep Rumsfeld until the end of the term paid a political price for it. As you correctly point out many of the Republican House and Senate seats changed hands by a razor thin margin.

The idea that the President didn't want to politicize the decision fails the "ha ha" test. His logic appears to be that although he would not terminate Rumsfeld if the effect would be to help Republicans. However, he was willing to make the decision in order to facilitate the relationship with the new Democrat majority. Why can we assume that this was the motivation? Because that is what the Democrats had called for during the election. In short, he gave them what they wanted.

The truth of the matter is that Rumsfeld should have been given the door ago. The war is going badly and there was a need for new leadership at the Pentagon. The most likely reason the President did not do so was that it would be interpreted as weakness in the face of the demands calling for Rumsfeld's ouster. However, when the Democrats captured both Houses of Congress, even the Administration realized that it would be impossible for Rumsfeld to represent them on the Hill. Thus, firing him could both build brindges to the Democrats on the Hill and avoid a perceived problem.

This can only be characterized as opportunism. The situation once again proves that good policy is also good politics. The change at the Pentagon should have been made much earlier because it was the right thing to do. It would likely have saved the Senate as well as the remaining two years of the Bush Presidency.

Forget about conservative judicial nominess. Forget about John Bolton. In order to try to salvage the remainder of his Presidency the new political buzzword will be "bi-partisanship."



Selmo...
The fact that you insist that one party should be the permanent majority surely does not support the true idea of a democracy, but rather hints towards a class of elites, better than anyone else. Hell, I'm not happy that the elections went the way they did, but I for one am not going to say that conservatives will get back in and stay in after 2008. At least two parties are needed to present different points of view - you know, the whole checks and balances thing...

Damage Control
Lets face it, the damage was done long ago. The Dem's brought this war out of control not BUSH! The last thing you want to do is show weakness to your enemy. Thats just what the dem's did by constantly whinning about Iraq and bringing the troops home before the job is done. They were pleasing their voters and not looking out for our country. Now the terrorists know that most of American's can't stomach a long, hard battle and they are gearing up to do some major damage. Booting Rumsfeld was just another "bargain" to the dem's and if anyone thinks that this government can get the job done and protect us from terror and at the same time try to please the voters then you need therapy. The dem's have caused major damage and the recovery will be a long one. Personally I don't think the dem's have what it takes to finish the job right and it just may wind up costing many American lives here in the heartland!

Bush Admninistration
Bush is the weak link in the Bush Administration, I have a feeling all shortcoming of our immigration authorities & military are the result of Bush policies.

I got the distinct impression that Don Rumsfeld wanted to win the war-but his boss was holding him back & I'm not talking about troop levels but the rules of engagement. I get the feeling the objective of the Iraq & Afghan war was to establish a united Caliphate for Muslims stretching from the Balkans to India & China-or at least that's the result.

If that wasn't the plan America got snookered pretty good by the Arabs & Iranians.


Honorable man?
Let's see, he lies to us when he says Lawbreaking Illegal Aliens come here only for "...jobs no American will take..." He lies to us when he says islam is "...an honorable and peaceful religion..." Why wouldn't he lie about the SecDef? Why wouldn't President Bush and Rove give a rat's rear about what the Dems think? Because, you idiot, they have the SAME agenda as the Democrats. President Bush has an agenda on the Illegal Immigration. When his party bucked him, he scuttled his party knowing the Dems would hand him his amnesty on a silver platter in return for control of the House and Senate.
Believe it.

Strategy
I don't think Mr. Bush is dishonorable. Not at all. I think Rummy was sick to death of the Pelosi branch, saw the coming insanity in hearings, etc., and saved Mr. Bush and himself the grief by walking off the stage. Great strategy. Or not.

The Perverse Pelosi branch will have to whine about something else. I think it was Brilliant. If you think about it, it won't effect the war effort that much. Same president.

I feel that Mr. Bush is seriously concerned for this country and is playing the hand he's dealt the best way he can to protect us.

He is a businessman. He weighs pros and cons for end results and makes decisisons of how he can best get something done. Pols look for the best political move. Getting something done isn't even on their agenda.

Mr. Bush knows the terrorist Islamo-fascists are NOT going away, are Not going to be reasoned with, and want to Destroy us. PERIOD.

Think about the wimp congress that let him down. No guts to cut spending. No guts to reform social security or the IRS.

The border issue is a MAJOR security problem.

And please remember - The President Does Not Legislate. He is in the Executive Branch. I hear people blame Mr. Bush for everything. He doesn't make laws.

Perverse Pelosi is using all her energy and concentration to help Mr. Bush protect us? No, but to get the minimum wage raised! Insanity! Just try to ignore the economic stupidity of that move for a moment, and remember the big picture: WE ARE AT WAR. And will be for many years. WAKE UP!

We are in serious trouble.

How do these people exist in a little bubble world where the minimum wage rate can be the focus when there are Islamo-fascists coming with a sword for their neck and their children's and grandchildren's necks?

Our new words for the age:

Denial - ignoring reality

Prioritizing - ordering items by importance

Sorry to be so long.

God Help Us. Amen.


Democrats & Iraq
As a conservative who opposed the war in Iraq but believes we must finish the job we started I applaud the firing of Don Rumsfeld. It should have happened much earlier and might have saved this election for the GOP. Beyond that, it is not the Democrats responsibility to come up with a plan to win the war...it is the job of President Bush to do that. The current plan has been an absolute failure in nearly every way imaginable...if there is any hope of salvaging the GOP for 2008 he must win this war with a plan he has crafted, not one of the Democrats choosing.

Republican Thumping
The Republican Party re-learned an important fundamental principle of our governmental system, "Those who govern do so by the consent of the governed." The Republican Party that was put into power was based on the electorate's expectations that conservative reforms would occur, and the leadership and elected Republican representatives had the ability to succeed in implementing those reforms. Instead:

• The party leadership failed to police its own party ranks to ensure the conduct of the elected representatives was ethical, moral, and did not fall victim to Washington greed and corruption.

• When the party leadership was aware or should have been aware of its members becoming part of the negative aspects of Washington culture, it apparently did nothing to correct the problem.

• Despite controlling the White House, and congressional leadership posts, the party leadership failed to succeed in overcoming Democrat and media opposition to judicial nominations that would ensure the Judicial Branch would not continue to be a de-facto law making entity unto itself and respect the Constitutionally created constructs of our government.

• The party leadership failed to ensure our boarders are secure, leading to our federal, state and local governments using taxpayer money for health, education, and local law enforcement expenses related to those in this country illegally, all while those who were here illegally were sending millions and millions of dollars out of our country and back to their own countries, bleeding our economy of money that would have otherwise been used here to increase the economic cycle of opportunity and prosperity for our own citizens. An invasion has occurred, not a military one, but an invasion that has succeeded in stripping job opportunity away from our citizens, utilized resource from our Federal, State and Local treasuries that should have been available for other vital needs of our citizens, and bled millions and million of dollars from our economy and sent to other countries instead.

• The party leadership failed to ensure that the government oversight responsibilities of the House ensured the Executive and Judicial branches of government were effectively enforcing laws prohibiting companies doing business in our country from hiring those who are here illegally.

• The party leadership has failed to effectively communicate the nature, dimensions, and intentions of those terrorist and Islamic organizations who have declared war on the United States and our treaty allies, failed to put the United States first when devising strategic responses to our enemies efforts against us, and failed to effectively refute media and democrat representations about our enemy, their intentions, and our own efforts and results.

• The party leadership failed to ensure that our government fulfilled its obligation to ensure that our citizens have the full benefit of the meaning, intent, and protections provided by the First Amendment guaranty of Congress making no law … preventing the free exercise of religion, and Fourteenth Amendment guaranty of protection against States from making laws that would abridge this vital freedom.

• The party leadership abandoned any pretext for controlling government spending, evidenced by uncontrolled “earmarking” and the Medicare drug bill.

Although I voted Republican on November 7, it was not a vote for what the party had in deed and action become, but a vote against the Democratic party. It was a vote of "the lesser of two evils", which is a sad commentary on what the Republican Party has become. When I look at the conservative reform expectations that put Republicans into power in the first place compared to the results achieved, I would give the party leadership the following grades:
• War with Islamic terrorists - B-
• Border Security - F
• Judicial placements - D
• Oversight of the ethical and moral conduct of elected party members - D
• Taxes and Economy - B
• Control over the Federal budget and government spending - F
• Overall leadership grade - D

The objective of the party needs to be both a recommitment to conservative reforms and an active aggressive defense of liberal reform now that the Democrats control congress. The latter will require strong leadership, highly effective communication, active management, and formation of strategic relationships with key "moderate" and "conservative" Democrats. Seniority should not dictate who gets the party leadership posts in or outside of Congress. The only and essential criteria is who will be effective in delivering on the conservative reform expectations of "We, the People" and guarding against the liberal attitudes about the role of our Government on behalf of "We, the People."

Rummy Got What He Deserved
Spare me the crocodile tears for Mr. Rumsfeld. He was a disaster - in the same way that robert McNamara was a disaster. Both demonstrated a complete contempt for the military professionals who know what war is all about. Both wanted to replace what worked with gadgetry and business school spin - McNamara brought in his Harvard MBA whizkids and tried to fight a guerrilla war with spread sheets and cost-benefit analyses. Rummy tried to shove Buck Rogers technology down the throats of the military - when what was need to fight the war we were engaged in was old-fashioned tube artillery (for the record, Rummy refused the Army's request to even provide one tube artillery battalion in Afghanistan - air power and satellites were the only accepted means). Both of these management morons tried to fight a war buy gutting the service-support end of the military - the engineers, signal, quartermaster, etc. - that you absolutely have to have to wage a war. Instead, these services were civilianized with corporate contractors. Vietnam proved the folly of that - but Rummy obviously didn't pay attention. Besides, the corporate vultures like Halliburton and Bechtel had to be taken care of. Sorry, but I toast Rumsfeld's demise - it's just to bad he isn't required to walk into a live battlefield and end it "honorably."

As for his replacement, Mr. Gates. When he ran the CIA - that was the time the intelligence professionals were required to make diversity quilts - political reeducation. 'nuf sadi here.

And the Republican loss on Tuesday? They deserved it. The country club set, once they got the power, blew off the conservative base and cozied up to the democrats - the same way they always do, whether at the national level or in local politics. Country club Republicans are the real enemy of any right-of-center political movement. If the Republicans want to win in the future, it will only be when the country club set is reined in and TOLD what to do - or else expell them from the party.

Coach
You write "no one can contest that Rumsfeld won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--and did so brilliantly." That is patently false. People can and do contest that assertion daily, on the grounds that those wars are still ongoing. How do you figure he won them at all, let alone "brilliantly"?

The Loss of the People
I agree wiht the above posts about Bush giving away the country to Mr. Fox. But the loss of the election I feel was a direct result of Bush's loss of support for the war in Iraq. I told a friend several years ago to subdivide Iraq into 3 parts move a protective force into the Kurdish North and let the South adjust to it's own ends. What I told him is that the constant loss of our soldiers eats away at people in their hearts. There is no end in sight the and losses increase everyday and the Iraq politicians in the Green Zone keep asking for more money and time. Most people of this country whether right of left feel the loss of these young soldiers and know that it is not right to keep having them do a thankless job and in the end the results will be the same. A tribal war that only a man willing to shoot people in the head can hope to control. That is what I think of as what happened in this election. People said it is time to get out by voting or not voting. Bush has a failed Presidency. I just hope I do not have to hear like from that Terrible McNamara in a few years, Rumsfeld saying I knew that Iraq was a lot cause from the beginning. We are in a long term struggle with Muslim Fundamentalists, we have lost the battle in Iraq. We need a better plan for the next one.

Get past it,
Rumsfeld really does not matter in this equation. Do we conservatives really want to mitigate these election results because a cabinet member was released a few weeks earlier? Do you really want to reward the Frists, Delays, Chaffees, Hasterts, et al by 78,001 votes(the national vote margin difference for retaining control)?

We lost because our leaders abandoned the message of '94. Our band of reformers turned into a bumper crop of beltway bimbos. It all began when they finessed themselves away from their voluntary term limit pledges. Soon afterward they became opiated on self-importance and power. They then used every trick to stay in Washington. That trick never works for Republicans.

America does not expect Dems to protect their money or to be ethical, but they do expect it of Reps and they did not get it. So, they voted for the party they know had no hope of meeting such expectations.

This does not have to be more than a painful and timely lesson. Let's put our anger and disappointment to positive use. Let's demand true conservative candidates that make and keep their pledges.

Republicans deserved to lose
The party has abandoned conservative principles. If the party can decide to adopt the Goldwater/Reagan platform again, and follow it resolutely, then it will return to power.

BTW, wouldn't Rick Santorum make a great Supreme Court Justice?

Malou....
You have to keep in mind there are multiple definitions of "war" and how that is applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. For some, this was simply the liberation of the people. This is the view I believe. This makes the current situation in both countries a humanitarian "reconstruction" effort, much like what was done after WWII in Germany. And before anyone tries to say that I do not know the difference... I do. However, it's a better comparison than calling it a humanitarian effort, such as Bosnia or Somalia.

If taken in that context, that the term "war" was as mentioned above, then yes it was done and done well. Both the Taliban and Hussein were removed from power in those countries with minimal casualties to civilians and military members. Therefore, the situation now does not apply to the "war", but rather the reconstruction efforts that we are supporting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It sounds to me that you would believe that the current situation is still the "war" itself. While we are fighting a war against terror and those that support it, how can you define the rebuilding of a country as a war? And do you then believe that when the United States was formed, there were no insurgencies or fighting against the establishment of a unified government? How do you believe the US survived our first 50 years of being a nation?

Thank you for your time.

HONORABLE MY - - - (Censored)
Paul called it, above. Bush is NOT and honorable man.
Baseball Doc called it about the evolution of a conservative viewing the dishonorable GWB. (I would also add LOATHING at the tail end of his evolutions.)
Buck spelled it out wonderfully.
I believe the bottom line is simply that another "Poor Little Rich Kid" is in the White House; somebody with absolutely no understanding of the mandate he was handed because he's never had to work for anything in his life. He had everything handed to him from birth.
Even his father was shocked into amazement when he was put into a supermarket.
Yessir, those are bar codes, moving belts and all the other goodies the rest of us see at least weekly.
We don't let out servants do the grocery shopping.
Sadly, the USA had a Hobson's Choice put upon them in the past two presidential elections; An apparently certifiable nut case in 2000 and another of the priggish, rich elite in 2004.
GWB's terms in office have been a disaster and will continue to be so as he adopts EVERYTHING the Democrats want.
He will do this because it was his agenda from the start.
Think on this: The last "NON-SILVER SPOON" presidents we had were
HARRY TRUMAN
and
RONALD REAGAN.
Who knew what it was like to live like the "common folk."

Mike, We don't need rants like this ...
... we need analysis based on facts.

For example, how do you know Rummy was fired. I suspect he quit. He is smart enough to know that it is not worth taking a bunch of grief for Bush and Condi if he is unable to get results.

And your assumption that if Bush announced his nomination before the election he would have improved the election results is crazy. Bush has no credibility any more and no one is listening to him. The Democrats would have hit the GOP for playing politics with the war effort, and the results might have been worse.

On the other hand, you don't even mention Gates. Gates was a Bush decision, and I suspect his nomination will turn out to be similar to the "Harriet Meyers" nomination as conservatives withdraw support from this weak candidate. (Maybe Bush can get enough Democrat votes to confirm. They seem to like weak leadership at DoD.)


Skunkworks Supt brings a point...
Whatever happened to politics not being a career, but where common men (and now women) could be chosen to represent their respective area?

Amnesty for Illegals: A Liberal's Policy
The fact is, Republicans and Democrats agree on more issues than we think. Maybe elections are more like a wrestling match where contestants pretend to fight.

Immigration is one issue both parties share in common. Both parties want the Hispanic vote, real bad. Both parties profit from the many businesses that rely on cheap labor. This is why nobody has worked very hard for "immigration reform". They don't want it. (Never mind the voters do).

If you want to become a minority in your own country, just have unrestricted immigration (like we actually do from Mexico). Once they are here, give them employment, then state drivers licenses and in-state tuition. Finally, legitimize it all with "amnesty". Now they can vote.

The Chinese have had a long standing conflict with Tibet because of their allegiance to Buddhism and independent leanings. Solution: Massive immigration from other regions of China into Tibet. Wala, Tibetans are now minorities in their own country. They have been reduced.

In 40 more years, the color of America will be cafe' (brown). The white population will all but disappear. Living standards will be lower and our culture, and possibly language, will be much different.

USABeliever asks:
1. What's your take on illegal immigration then? ...

People who came here illegally to find work (and who worked, or who are still working) have contributed to our society, and should not be punished. The people who hired (or hire) illegal immigrants are complicit in them being here – either directly or indirectly – and should be punished. Ex post facto, however, must apply … no one can be punished for having played the game so cleverly worked out by political hacks and the legal system (which includes as many shyster lawyers as it does so-called “activist judges”). So, amnesty to any illegal immigrant who can demonstrate that they held or hold a job before an agreed to date; a major overhaul of the documentation process for future immigrants; costly punishments for any employer who directly or indirectly fails to investigate documentation and hires undocumented or falsely documented workers. And you know something? … if trucks can freely cross our borders hauling merchandise manufactured in foreign countries, then workers should be allowed to obtain work visas to do the same (and workers should be allowed to cross the border(s) in both directions!)

People who have come here and cannot demonstrate that they came to work should be deported. Immigrants here on work visas or who receive documentation in the future must remain crime-free, or face deportation.

The “millions of illegal aliens” who might be granted amnesty are already here. I cannot fathom a fair and just system for finding them all that will not result in all sorts of “mistakes” and intrusions into the lives of honest and hardworking individuals that could cause as many problems as it supposedly solves. The best solution is to bite the bullet, look at the immigration policies of the last three Administrations, and learn how to not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

2. What do you see as the table of options for Iraq? And what do you think the risks are for each of those options? ...

“Packing up and coming home” solves no problems for anyone. We created the problem in Iraq, so we have bought it and have to try to solve it. That is the price we pay for stupidity and deception on the part of our leaders.

There are several options available, none pretty, none magical, and none that will result in a world that meets our definition of “good” or even “satisfactory”. That, too, is the price we pay for an unnecessary aggressive military action. I list them in no particular order of preference, and each, if enacted, would probably create new and unanticipated conditions.

• Temporarily increase the size of our military presence in Iraq and use it to quell in-fighting and insurrection. Disarmament might be a goal, but highly unlikely to succeed … instead, just bring the various factions to their knees and get them to agree to stop fighting for a while. Meanwhile, solve the political impotence of the Iraqi “government in waiting” (see below). Once the government actually begins to govern – once it makes some laws, establishes a means to enforce those laws and brings to justice those who violate it, encourages reconstruction and reestablishment of basic services, and does other things that self-sufficient governments can do – we leave. We could even, as President Bush as claimed he is doing, set benchmarks and timetables for achieving these goals. Of course, the risks of this approach is that the insurgency swells rather than disappears. The amount of necessary firepower to stop the insurgency just might be too much. The second risk is that the Iraqi government might never solve its internal problems.

• Keep the military presence at about the same level, and use it more strategically. Use it as a buffer between the competing Shi’a militias, guaranteeing that each cleric’s space is free from incursion by other clerics and/or warlords; use it as a buffer to protect all Shi’a neighborhoods from Sunni terrorists, and all Sunni neighborhoods from Shi’a incursions. Keep the Kurds away from everyone. Strategically draw down the troops from Iraq, but move them to neighboring allies where they can be quickly mobilized and brought back into Iraq as needed. The risks of this approach are clear … our military becomes “shields” and “targets” for competing factions, and current troop levels may not be sufficient (at least, initially).

• Invite the United Nations to send a “peace-keeping” force to Iraq (as large or as nominal as we can convince member nations to offer). More importantly, put our troops under UN control. There are lots of risks in this approach – the UN force will be “minimal” (for a variety of reasons) and the US will continue to carry the brunt of the burden; domestically, many in this country will not like surrendering our sovereignty to a UN force or UN leadership; the UN-commanded military presence may not have any better luck than the US force; etc. – but at least the charade of an “international” effort to solve the problem in Iraq will have been eliminated, and hatred of the US will no longer be an issue to rally insurgency.

• Leave. Saddam is gone, wmds (which never existed) not an issue, a “government” is in place, and al-Qaida only gains strength in Iraq while we are there – if we are not there, the “fight” becomes one between Shi’a and Sunni, rather than against the “infidel”. Let Iraq sink or swim on its own merits. It won’t be the first time that we have let internal struggles between competing factions duke it out for control of their own country. The risk, of course, is that Iraq will devolve into either total anarchy (risking invasion from some local “coalition of the willing” that seek to “make their neighborhood” more stable) or some strong-man cleric will assume power and cement a strong anti-Western entente with Iran and Syria.

• Finally – government. A stable Iraqi government would be highly desirable (but, realistically, perhaps unattainable). Other than Saddam, who brought stability through tyranny, there have only been two times since in recent times that Iraq has been somewhat “stable”. The British maintained stability for two different periods following WWI (1918-1932 and 1941-1947) – often brutally (though not nearly as brutally as Saddam … when he was an ally of the U.S.!). The other time was during Ottoman rule (a few hundred years). In both of the latter cases, Iraq was governed as a unified “region” or “territory”, but with three autonomous regions within it (the degree of regional autonomy varying over the years). These three regions correspond to Mosul (northern, Kurdish), Baghdad (central, Sunni & Shi’a), and Basra (southern, mostly Shi’a). The various ethnic factions butt up against each other (and are mixed, especially IN Baghdad and Basra), but there are also pretty clear geographical regions occupied by the three groups. Regional autonomy with a central government (perhaps structured similarly to the US Congress under the Articles of Confederation) to set national law and priorities (and to referee regional disputes) has historical precedence, and has worked. A fair way to divide oil revenues would be necessary, and (at least for a while) an international peace-keeping force along the east-west line surrounding Baghdad and the region south of Basra would be necessary (short of partition, where folks actually move to a new region).

3. How does government oversight resolve or not resolve the problem? Who do you think would be appointed for the oversight, if you support it?

This question is unclear … are you speaking of ethics and corruption? I have already said way too much, so will leave this question for later, rather than guess at your intent.

USAbeliever
You are very polite. Thank you for that. I believe we are fighting a war of attrition in Iraq, and possibly in Aghanistan, too. Officials sometimes call it "the reconstruction effort" and sometimes "part of the global war on terror," but both of these monikers are spin, designed to save face.

dittoes
This piece resonated powerfully with me. I think the line "betrayal by my party" was the real clincher. Also, he omitted widespread corruption from his list of reasons why we were creamed. Not the kind of "culture of corruption" that is so normative among Dems, that nobody even questions it; but enough of it, along with cynical spineless complacency, to make a critical difference. What's worse, an enemy or a traitor? I confess to a mounting bitterness. Not toward W, for whom I feel only a deepening disappointment and embarrassment, but toward the Republican Party. I'm just glad I didn't give the RNC any money this year (in 04 I did phone bank and precinct walking for the Bush campaign). I'm proud, instead, of having supported a few good men (Santorum, Blackwell, Talent, and McClintock in my home state of California) even though every one of them lost.

Pragmacapitalist ...
"...Smart move. Rummy had been there too long, but he is a good man, a great public servant, and personally I'm happy this was handled in the way that it was, the day after."

Well said, and I fully agree.

Songo lied, truth died
1) Bush was a uniter. The Dems started dividing the country to conquer Congress. And because enough people like you believed their lies, it worked.
2) Trying to catch Osama and failing is not lying about it. Distorting Bush's words and record is lying.
3) The 70% of Iraqis who voted for a unity government did greet us as liberators. More distortions.
4)Mission Accomplished was the banner for the ship that had finished its tour of duty.Bush haters re-defined that to mean Bush thought our work was over in Iraq. A lie. He said that mjor combat operations are over in Iraq and we won. When we toppled Saddam and changed the Iraqi govt from his dictatorship to our provisional govt, the major combat operations were over. He never said that we were through in Iraq. Another Leftist lie.
5)Stay the course meant stay until the job is done. It was re-defined to mean Bush never changes any strategy. Another lie. The job to finish is to allow the Iraqis to live in a stable society without fear of constant terror attacks.
6)Saddam lost Gulf War I. Part of his surrender terms involved no-fly zones and weapons programs. The UN found that he repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender. He was a state sponsor of terrorism. After 9/11 -remember that?- we as a people decided to go on the offensive against all terrorists and sponsors of terrorists.
7)We used diplomatic means with Saddam until they were exhausted and still gave him six months notice to explain his wmd programs - remember 17 un resolutions?- We would have others protect us from terrorist bullies - and it's funny you think GW is a bully- and so we moved to remove Saddam and give the people of Iraq an opportunity for self government. 75 per cent of Iraqis risked death to vote it in and their resolve is steady despite the insurgents and the whole anti-american world's best efforts to convince them to give up and let the bad guys win. It really is a loving act for millions of people and their future. Try to be compassionate and understanding towards them. ok?

All Bush haters who pretend that Bush misled them are liars. All Bush haters who twist Bush and Cheney’s words to call them incompetent or dishonest are the real liars. I thought Bush was supposed to be stupid. How could such a dimwit fool so many smart people?

Why are you rehashing the same ol' same-o?

The Dems won, based on the lies refuted above. Why don't you just stop the yada yada and be happy?
Why don't you do something helpful?

Love to all.

Last Man Standing
We woke up in an aggitated state on November 8 to suddenly realize that, after the smoke cleared, the last man standing was ... John McCain! Yep, his three potential opponents for the '08 GOP Presidential nod are now going back to private life, leaving the Republicans in the Senate in the hands of Goober Graham and his sidekick from Arizona.
In his excellent article yesterday on TH, Hugh Hewitt places the blame for the defeat of Republican Senators directly at the feet of McCain and his posse of 14 nincompoops. I am inclined to agree. McCain has done untold damage to Republicans, first by his refusal to end the filibuster rule and have a straight up-and-down vote on judges and political appointees [Bolton is now dead in the water at the UN as are any future judgeships that Bush might want to appoint]and second by his name on the infamous McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill, in fact, for that matter, just about any bill with his name on it, like the Campaign Reform Bill which reformed nothing. But it did keep his name before the public and generated the usual accolades from the drive-by media.
Now McCain has virtually no one standing in his way of the nomination who possesses any national stature like a re-elected George Allen or Rick Santorum. Is Harold Stassen still alive?
The burning question now is: When McCain jumped to the rescue of the Democratic obstructionists in the Senate, which began the demise of the befuddled Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chaffee et. al., did he know what he was doing, that this was his opportunity to clear the field and leave him running towards the end zone with no one around to stop him, or did he just get the winning lottery ticket by a stroke un unbelieveable luck?
McCain will be a complete nimbus if he fails to secure the nomination, despised as he is by so many of his colleagues nonetheless. The opposition to him and Hillary in their own parties will be interesting to observe. I believe Hillary will have the most difficult time, but McCain has no opposition, no Algore or Hoof-and-mouth diseased Kerry to knock off. So in '08 we will see Herself going up against Himself. What a choice!
There will be no opposition to the continued invasion from the South since both Senators signed onto the Senate Amnesty Bill [Allen and Santorum didn't and they're both gone: Allen because of a slip of the mouth and Santorum because his prinicples were more important than his re-election, and Frist was not up to the job of reining in McCain].
The continued invasion will eventually, in a few years, give the Democratic Party enough parasitic voters to virtually guarantee their hold on power until the US ceases to exist, which wont be long.
I hate pessimism, but I see no hope now: Europe is becoming more Muslim everyday, France has still not regained control of their streets, and we will soon, as Mark Steyn has written, be all alone in the world with hostile forces facing us around the globe. Can we expect a Rodham Presidency to deal with this? Or a McCain?
"World Opinion", Colin Powell's favorite group, and the distaff side of multiculturalism, holds an inordinate influence on the West and its interests [just look at who is disturbed by Saddam's necktie party]. We have the firepower to put an end to North Korea's nuclear pretensions, and Syria and Iraq's also. The dictators and mullahs in these two countries know we will not ... because of "world opinion." So, we will continue the slow, inevitable suicide along with Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc. etc. turning over control of the world to people who make the communists look good.

BrianR . . .
Some minor corrections regarding your post:

Impeachment is what happens in the House. Prior to that, the Socialist-Democrats will conduct investigations and hearings (all will be made public) to present Bush in the worst possible light. The committee to impeach the president will present articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives and, brother, there will be a ton of them. The articles do not have to specifically allege a crime. It can be any activity that would be considered morally reprehensible. The House is unlikely to have enough votes, but it's the PROCEDURE, not the end result, which is the goal.

The Senate doesn't convict in impeachment "trials". Convictions take place in courts of law. The Senate merely decides whether to remove the president from office. If he's removed, he could still be tried criminally in a federal or state court.

As I pointed out, it's the process that the Socialist-Dems really want to go through. They are preparing the battlefield for 2008. Even a failed impeachment of Bush will assist their nefarious endeavors.

Wait'll you see what happens to Rumsfeld in the International Court. The socialists are the real enemy, not the terrorists.

Shays...
While I can see we may disagree on some points as to why we got to the position we are as a nation, the analysis you've done is a good example of how the facts coming out can help people work together.

Illegal Immigration - Great points. Have you considered about the scenario where an illegal may be contributing here as you mention, but may be a criminal from their home country? A nighttime TV show is putting this example on center stage (see my blog) The other other point is on amnesty - what rights are they given? Are they given full citizenship, or a visa of some sorts? The debate about that may shape up being the rights of illegal immigrants vs. the rights of legal immigrants. For example, legal immigrants may not be entitled to social programs for the most part until after living in the US for 10 years. How does one justify giving those rights to the illegals while not for people that went through the process and did it right? In either case, it is going to be a long fight to get a workable solution both passed and implemented.

Iraq - This was one of the better ways I have seen this pointed out. Yes, the options may not seem good. I think part of this rests with the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq. Maybe it's time for them to decide - and if they want us to say, I think the Iraqi government with the Iraqi people asking us to stay and explaining why to the American people would be a good step in the right direction. This could be a longer discussion for another time.

Oversight - While ethics and corruption is part of my understanding of "oversight", this could have many definitions. For the sake of debate, why not define it as the ability for an entity, whether individual or group both inside and outside of government positions, to gather information of government activity at all levels for the process of clear checks and balances. At what point does classified information and issues of national security get involved, and how do these get handled?

Party lines put aside, a lot of people believe that trust in our government needs to be reestablished. It's time to start rebuliding this trust and keep it. As an individual, it is unlikely that we will have all of the information there is out there. We need to trust our elected representatives to do their job with the information they are provided.

So,...I'm not alone after all.
The First Tuesday in November was not a day for every republican politician to mourn. Look what's already happening!
Making cozy with Pelosi in the Whitehouse, Bush is finally laying his leftward leaning deck (maybe not the fullest)on the table.
No more need for the border security facade! Any mariachi-serenaded elephant caravan is welcomed (even those carrying dirty bombs)! No need to explain failing to pardon border security agents who were convicted of doing their jobs! No need to explain engaging our military in yet another conflict they are not allowed to win!
Can't we all learn to appreciate the correctness of refusing to attack 175 terrorists gathered together at the funeral of one of their leaders?
Can't we all just...get along?


Malou...
Definition of Attrition in regards to military:

(DOD, NATO) The reduction of the effectiveness of a force caused by loss of personnel and materiel.

As I have said in another post, I must consider the possibility that we may be supporting such a war, but not fully directing it. As we have in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the governments have a say in how our military performs their duties there. While you have not said this, there are others that believe that we are occupying Iraq. The fact that they are partially in the control of our forces, directly or indirectly, could be perceived as our soldiers in a support role.

While I may disagree with your definition of those terms, I am glad to see your points. Thanks for your respect and reply.

CAF
"With all due respect your comments indicate that your knowledge of matters military is non-existant."


Really? I served in 5/17 Cav, 4-24 Avn and 3/7 Cav . I don't pretend to have gone to the Army War College, but neither should Rumsfeld! He is a manager, not a tactician, and his handling of the war speaks for itself. Success needs no explanation...failure allows none. As I was taught in basic training, "The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!"

Rumsfeld and company could learn from that.

I am aware of Rummy's penchant for trying to transform the Army by ditching much of the heavy armor and mech infantry divisions and replacing them with spec ops. Worked real well, hasn't it? We found out that we NEED those "dinosaurs" as you dismissivly call heavy arty and tanks. War is not friendly to thin skinned vehicles, as I thought we had found out in Mogadishu. Yet, we found ourselves getting shot and IED'd in un-armoured hummers and trucks again in Iraq. Wonderful. Even the Stryker brigade was having problems, and had to add additional armour screens to their brand new AFVs. Time and again, the Abrams and Bradley AFVs have shown the ability to withstand all but the largest IEDs, and are virtually impervious to the rest of the insurgent arsenal. Spec Ops has its place, and armour and artillery does as well. They do not preclude one another. I would rather have ALL the tools in my toolbox, then try to use just one to do everything.

Another note:

General Shinseki warned against a twelve division foreign policy with only a ten division army before Rummy dumped him. Looks like he was right after all.

Songo
You need to get a life ... I suggest as a consultant in Fallujah to Iraqi Defense Forces.

r0-d2
So your name came true... Congrats to the Dems. Also, thanks for only putting up the link to a liberal site with only half the story and thus changes the context. Here's the full story:

http://rollcall.com/issues/52_46/news/15926-1.html

You're free to speak your opinion as usual. However it's usually better to reference the original text from a source. Just thought I'd get the right info for everyone to read.

Mend your ways. The people have spoken.
Gallagher,

Make up your mind. First you disagree that this is about the war. Then you say this:

"If this election was, indeed, about America’s dissatisfaction with the direction of the war, don’t you think that a number of these razor-thin victories by Democrats might have gone the other way if Rumsfeld had stepped down a few weeks ago?
Of course they would have."

Make up your mind or are you in denial even if you deny it?

The people have spoken. Mend your ways. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Be real Christians as most of you profess to be. Be like Jesus. Jesus loved everybody including the liberals and gays. Jesus also cared for the poor and have a haunting statement for rich people and their ability to reach the kingdom of God (camel and needle, remember?)

disappointed
I am so disappointed in President Bush for letting Rummy go now. Why now? Why not months ago when it could have made a difference in the election. Is Bush for or against us? My husband was in the 160th Special Operations Task Force at Fort Campbell, KY. We traveled to Germany, Korea, Ft. Leavenworth, Ks, as well as Kentucky in his 22 year Army career. He was also in Vietnam right before we got married. Bush has let the military down and because the Dems are going to run things now, Iraq won't be the same. It will be overrun with terrorists. Before we know it they will be over here terrorising us again. I can't even stand to watch the news anymore, because I have to see the likes of Pelosi, Shumer, Reid, Durbin, etc. As I said before, I'm very disappointed in President Bush. What was he thinking?

What a Shame
The post directly above mine was undoubtedly written by a very immature, intellectually bereft and naive Songo, who is precisely what he most despises. One who is incapable of forming an independent thought. Unfortunately, s/he is also quite an accurate representation of the faulty thinking of the neocommunists in our country, who believe with all their hearts that they're the great patriots of America and leveling the playing field till we're on equal ground with lesser nations is the right thing to do, cause darn it, it'll just make folks feel better about themselves in France! The truth is, Songo and those of his ilk ARE traveling down the European trail of tears to decadence and decline. They truly believe in nothing and have no worries or cares beyond their own noses and comforts. They give lip service only when it comes to caring about others, turn their noses up at patriotism; they know nothing of public service and true charity, much less sacrifice and all those concepts that are foreign to them. This PINHEAD apparently thought of the midterm elections as an event about as important as a soccer game. Note, I didn't use football, as this type has not the intestinal fortitude or... to play the game. "First of all, your party lost. Ha ha. ...Oh, and did I mention: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" Songo, did I mention that you're a pinhead?

Idiocy speaks
And Songo is the winner!!!

Good Riddance
Just 3 years too late. Only reason Rumsfeld wasn't gone long ago is that Bush was too big a fool to understand how incompetently the Iraq war has been run and the consequences that would have to the republican majority.

Anyone who thinks Rumsfeld should still be Secretary of Defense is a bigger fool than Bush, snoozed through the election, or both.

The voters not only spoke they roared. They want a change in policy and strategy in Iraq. Even Bush knows they wouldn't get that as long as Rumsfeld ran DoD.

And Bush has to demonstrate contritely to Nancy Pelosi that he was aware he had been emasculated by the election. He understood completely that when he lost both house and senate he is the lamest of lame ducks. He can't get anything done in the next two years without the approval of the democrats.

Who's next? Bolton? Then any one who displeases the democratic victors. To the victors belong the spoils of government.

Honest Policy
Go find some "loose change" and get a life. Your wacko conspiracy theories belong with the Flat Earth Society and the Illuminati groupies.

Um... yeah...
Honest Policy, I am amazed at the fact that you state there is "substantial evidence" of a 9-11 plot by the former mayor, yet you did not link any references nor present additional information.

Even the majority of people, including liberals, agree that the attack on the WTC was real, not demolitions or a "inside job". News agencies have even dropped this as it lacks credibility.
Conspiracy theories, while interesting, tend not to be true.

But hey, I guess the investigations that proved otherwise were just a government cover-up to you too...

A point of disagreement
While I think that Rummy's resignation was a terrible loss, and share Mike's anger at a purely political removal (this was!), doing it before the elections would have given even more steam to the MSM/DNC machine. I think our losses would have been even greater.

so what?
Rumsfeld served for 1.5 Presidencies. He got the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq right and made a total mess of the occupation.

I like him because the Cold Warrior brass at the Pentagon hate him. All the same, we need to start using our brains in the Middle East instead of our cojones. That needs somebody else.

Slacker...
Perhaps I have taken your out of context? This gives the impression that you would like to see every Republican either fold and go with the Dems or expect to for their head to roll. While I have read several of your posts, I hope this was your meaning.

Yes, this means there will be bi-partisanship. Not always a bad thing. It could also lead to some interesting gridlock on issues. Only time will tell on those things. The question is going to come on issues where the moderate Dems will have to face votes on issues more left of their general views. Do they go with the leadership of the party and risk alienating those that put them in power? Do they stand their ground and work for bipartisan solutions?

This will be an interesting 2 years for both parties...

Ladies & Gents


If you Democrats can stop crowing for a moment about protesting Republicans giving you a victory you might care to know that HAMAS suicide bombers have been ordered to attack America and Israel.
Info came from CNSNEWS.com but I can't get the link for some reason. You can go there if you want to.

A question JUST FOR REPUBLICANS.
Knowing what you know TODAY, if you were faced with the same choice,
Bush v. Kerry,
Which way would you go?
If you think that is a hard choice;
Try Billery v. McCain!

America just went from bad to worse and the future does not look any brighter!

Huh?
At least we would have been spared watching this honorable man try and explain why he didn’t tell the truth."

Honor is as honor does, Mike.


Mike -- you've MISQUOTED Bush!
Bush replied that "I WANT" Rumsfeld to continue through the end of the Administration when question before the election.

"WANT", "NEED", and "HAVE GOT TO DO" are three different statements.

Bush didn't lie -- the media (AND YOU) misquoted him, taking his stated WANT as a fact.

MyOpine...
Still looking for that info, but I know there was another AQ tape:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/10/iraq.main/index.html
(also pretty much any MSM outlet)

Wish I could find the entire translation of the tape. Food for thought.

The dog must have sharp teeth!
I'm no one special...just a delivery driver...HS education....technical training, and I am very interested in which way my country is headed. My opinion, however-qualified, is to apply the "K.I.S.S." theory to identifying where we as Conservitives stand after this mid-term flop. First we must reestablish our core belief and understand that we are human and subject to human flaws. The single most important of which is our tendency to overreact on impulse. The second would be to face the truth that we are also subject to manipulation through simple perception. Our new world of "information every-where every minute of every day" is the primary key to our recovery as a team. Right now the free press can report what ever story written by who-ever and recycle that story every half hour 24 hrs p/days every day of the year with absolute immunity of being help acountable for weather or not the story is true. I'm not talking about screwing with freedom of the press or free speech...i'm simply suggesting that we find a real law that is on the books and give it some real teeth so we can stop the 24 hr news media from mass mis-information campaigns that is clearly becomeing the new political party of power..."THE PERCEPTION PARTY"...."THE IMPLICATION-PARTY". If it is in fact true that over billing your client becomes a federal offence by placing a stamp on it...and if it is true that we can convict murderers for tax evasion...then there has to be a way that we can hold the media accountable for the spread of misinformation!

Honest policy
I note that your post was oddly formatted.

Was this done to form a coded acrostic witht he first letters? To tell you CIA black ops disinformation bosses that you had succeeded? That you had thrown blame on Giuliani to distract from the Mossad-Haliburton conspiracy really behind the 9-11 attacks? Or to distract us fromt he way the Rotary International is putting mind controlling additives in our gasoline?

In case you can't tell (as fools tend to be humorless) this is intended as mockery.

Proclamation of Sour Grapes
Mr. Gallagher said,

"Hearing liberal Democrats claim that the election was all about the war when they didn’t offer a single alternative plan was infuriating."

Please stop, that's disingenuous. Several leading members of the Democratic Party offered alternatives to Bush's "Stay The Course" plan.

Fact of the matter is, America is fed up with Bush and his "Stay The Course" rhetoric. America recognized we are more vulnerable to terrorism. Our country is not as safe as it should be and not as secure as Americans think it is. Despite the administration's rhetoric "we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, the threat we face remains and knows no boundaries.

Our military is mired in costly operations in Iraq, that terrorist experts agree has decreased America’s national security.

Americans wanted a change in course. They no longer believe what they are being told, because Republican politicans and media pundits have put politics ahead of policy.

Deal with it and get with the program.

"Now we’ll be treated to a couple of years of gloating Democrats who will raise our taxes, give amnesty to illegals, and, God forbid, wave the white flag of surrender in Iraq."

In yesterday's Washington Post;

"There's not going to be, frankly, room for some grand new adventure in federal spending," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Still, there's plenty on the Democratic wish list, starting with relief for the growing number of middle-class families hit by the alternative minimum tax, which jacks up their tax bills. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), likely to be the next Ways and Means chairman, said yesterday that "tackling this very complex problem would be a good test of bipartisanship."

Rangel said he would not roll back tax cuts that President Bush won from the Republican Congress. But budget experts predict that Democrats will revisit at least some of them, such as lower rates for the richest Americans, lower rates on capital gains and dividends, and partial repeal of the estate tax, to pay for other priorities.

So, why is Mike Gallagher against the Middle Class?




Is Songo 12 years old?
Songo said, "First of all, your party lost. Ha ha."

This is what you bring to a political discussion? Wow!

You also said on a previous post that Prez Bush didn't win either election. It is moonbat claims like this that cause liberals to get no credit in political discussions. Your ignorance of the electoral college and false claims of votes not counting in FL are bad enough, but to suggest that Prez Bush somehow didn't win in 2004 is just ridiculous.

When you grow up and want to join the grown-up discussions, please feel free to return.

Dirty Jim
So, to oppose liberal tax policies is to be anti-middle-class? Talk about disingenuous!

How about instead of repealing pro-growth tax cuts to "pay" for middle class tax relief, that they just spend less? Of course "spend less" is not a phrase Democrats comprehend (nor did Republicans, and we see where it got them.)

I think when cpital gains taxes skyrocket and "soak the rich" schemes put the economy in the toilet again the middle class will not find much benefit in the end of the AMT. (Though when their children have to sell family businesses to pay inheritance taxes, they get to leave the middle class, so guess they don't matter anymore.)

Yes, I agree, the AMT is a bad thing, but destroying the economy to eliminate it is foolish. What we need is fiscal discipline, not a new set of class-warfare inspired tax policies. And it is crazy to call the democrat tax plans pro-middle-class.

Songo and Jean Cocteau
"The problem with this century is that stupidity has begun to think." [Jean Cocteau] Obviously thinking too, of Songo who thinks that a two-vote Senate majority and a less than large sixth-year turn-over is something to crow about. In '08 some six vulnerable Democratic Senators will have to go before the voters and two years should be long enough for the voters to realize that the Dems have no ideas beyond hate Bush. The Self-Defense forces in Fallujah will be interested in his "take" on things here.

Lydia
You are right, it is a dying nation. You gave me the word I was looking for, "outsourced". That's exactly what Bush did, he outsourced his party. I feel used.

USABeliever, I am praying for
some real bipartisanship. The dems won by moving to the center, not by pandering to the far left lunatic fringe of the party. There has too much partisanship over the past few years and too little willingness on both sides to listen to each other.

The last 3 elections illustrated the country is pretty much evenly divided on "big picture" issues. I think the dems figured that out and that it means they can win by finding a middle way that doesn't lose their base but attracts moderates.

Sounds wishy-washy but its the way the democrats won this time. If you look at the freshman senators and congressmen they look much more like moderates than foaming at the mouth radical left wingers trying to create the ultimate "socialist paradise".

Even Ann Coulter saw this in her latest column. Her problem is she is so biased she thinks they are lying about their true positions and they are really somewhat to the left of Stalin. If they are lying about their true positions voters will see right through it and they are in for one term only. But I do not think they are.

In any case, now that they have a taste of power the Dems will want to keep it. The surest way to lose it will be to say one thing and do another publicly. I thing the moderate majority of them know that. I also trust the conservatives to shine a spotlight light on every act of democratic hypocracy in the next 2 years.

You liberals are something else!
You finally win an election, which you should have based on historical fact that every 6th term Prez loses some seats in Congress, and you act like you made some huge gains! While this election was certainly a vote against Repubs, it was hardly a vote for the Dems. They ran their campaigns on "a vote for change" without giving any details about what they would do differently. Hardly a mandate!

When the Dems start winning elections by running on what they actually plan on doing in Congress, then I will applaud their win. Right now they are winning by default because the Repubs have done so poorly.

Examples: In Arizona, Dem Harry Mitchell ran nothing but attack ads about Repub JD Hayworth. Not one ad that said what he would actually do if elected. (Although they are still counting early ballots on this race and nobody has declared a winner yet.) On the Senate side, Dem Peterson's campaign slogan was "nobody Senator but ours". Does that mean he won't take any money from Worker Unions, Teachers Unions, George Soros or Trial Lawyers? Right! His tv ads were nothing but attack ads also. Nothing that suggested what he would do, except be "independent".

Hey slacker....
Please read the following article from HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/bushs-decency-highlights_b_33055.html

I agree that some bi-partisanship would be nice, but you can hardly blame this on Prez Bush.

jander

Sometimes "we suck less" is a winning theme.

.

Jander anyone who thinks ...
campaign ads and 30 second spots have any real meaning, are the proper place to publicly express or debate public policy is either an idiot or knows nothing about advertising, or both.

Everything you say about the democrat ads I could say about republican ads. Case in point, the Corker ad against Ford that got all the hoopla... It was a cute ad that I, personally, unlike many of my liberal friends thought was funny and amusing. But it certainly didn't give me any real idea of what Corker stood for (or Ford didn't stand for).

Also the democrats wanted to win, not lose. You don't win by putting boring ads on TV explaining esoterica about economic or foreign policy that nobody watches. You put ads on that make people angry at the other guy or fall in love with you in 30 seconds. At very minimum grab a bored viewer's attention while channel surfing. And if you are out of power you shoot at the other guy and give them as small a target as possible.

andrews
Good Post. Acrostic. Send me to the dictionary.

Paul on immigration
I am in total agreement with you on Bush's "secret" agenda to throw open the floodgates of North America to anyone who wants to pass freely across our borders with no passport or interference. It is completely contradictory to talk about national security and open borders as though they were compatible in some way. Bush is not a conservative, honest or honorable in my estimation. He has consistently put our nation in harm's way by not securing our borders and not fighting radical Islam with the full military might of the US arsenal. By proceeding with half-measures and lipservice we get a double dealing politician instead of a no-BS, "call it like it is" world leader with a set of stones to back up his domestic and foreign policy.

I think I know why Bush did not tell us-
President Bush spoke falsely about Rumsfeld because there are only two things that he really believes in. One is that we should be kind to people who harbor our enemies. Do not fully project our power as we did in Germany and Japan. The second is amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In the whole, he believes in almost everything that Democrats believe. Because of this, a House controlled by the Democrats is not really a difficulty for him. In his mind, his only obstacle to all he wanted, that is: a return to this country of Big-spending Limo-Republicans, (after the form of Specter, Snow, et al), was the conservative House members. He has been at war with Conservatives since their usefulness for him ended at the last election. He wanted to end the Conservative power influence over the Republican Party, so in the future no politician would have to mouth the things he and his father did. He therefore had to remove those conservative members. If he shot down others, that was ok, he looks at the long picture.

What does this mean? If he had announced before the election that Rumsfeld was moving out, we would not have lost -- it would have shown the "mostly uninformed" that atleast he was trying to do the right thing. They probably would have extended the chance of the Republicans in the House and Senate. He could afford the change of control. If you doubt me, answer this: why was the most animated part of his speech when he talked about the new House working with him on immigration? I must say, he did this as well as Ze Dung ever did, I know -- I watched it happen before I escaped from China.

I have more parallels that I see, and I can support my arguments with several pages of incidents, but I don't want to hog here. (is that the right English expression?) -- for example - when he put Myers up as a judge, he called his base anti-woman, no amnesty was racism, (neat trick, I'm Chinese, my wife is Black). There are many more examples.

When MY wife returns back from Iraq this cycle, I am going to ask her to not re-enlist. I have lost one wife to a government that enslaves it people, I will not lose another.

Please forgive/gently correct my English, (I left one blog because I got tired of people making fun of my sentences, and not my ideas). When I am angry my English gets worse. Also, I write this on my PDA, since I don't use the company's resources for private things.

You "Born Americans" most have NO IDEA what this country is really about, how it Shines, how people oppressed look on us! I feel we are doomed, Mei died for nothing.

-Mao Ma4 Ding

Wake up, Gallagher
Honorable man?
Let's see, he lies to us when he says Lawbreaking Illegal Aliens come here only for "...jobs no American will take..." He lies to us when he says islam is "...an honorable and peaceful religion..." Why wouldn't he lie about the SecDef? Why wouldn't President Bush and Rove give a rat's rear about what the Dems think? Because, you idiot, they have the SAME agenda as the Democrats. President Bush has an agenda on the Illegal Immigration. When his party bucked him, HE SCUTTLED HIS PARTY KNOWING THE DEMS WOULD HAND HIM HIS ANMESTY ON A SILVER PLATTER IN RETURN FOR CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE.
Believe

Ziggy on Bush's missteps
You mentioned the Dubai ports deal and while I can certainly understand the caution, the UAE is one of the few Middle East nations that are willing to work with us against terrorism. That's not to say they are perfect as Jordan and Saudi Arabia aren't either, but they are trying.

As for the other Arab states that are seeking nuclear weapons, many are not doing it out of a sense of fear of Iran, but are in fact emboldened by the UN's feckless attempts at trying to control them. Remember Bin Laden was emboldened by our lack of action in Kenya, Khobar Towers and the USS Cole.

I think Bush is weak, not just from election but his house of cards is beginning to collapse and his last hope is to try and work out some deal on illegal immigration to grant them amnesty so that his legacy won't just be the Iraq debacle.

Songo has no clue....
Your pathetic attempts at debate are as hollow as most liberals head. Salt clearly refuted every point you made with salient, rational facts and you responded with more immature Bush-hatred rhetoric. Par for the course with most any liberal debater. You have to twist words to get a point across...sad.

Things to remember when voting....
The media is now focusing on Republicans cannibalizing themselves trying to root out what went wrong on Tuesday. My opinion was that it had no more to do with McCain than evangelicals or Foley and Abramhoff. It was a conflux of many factors and it's self-defeating to try and point the finger of guilt at any single reason.

Faith should have a limited influence in voting for leaders and here's why: Values are important, but beyond that is ensuring the liberty to express those values. Would I vote for a leader who wasn't a Christian, but someone I knew wouldn't trample on the First Amendment or allow anyone else to? Absolutely. We enjoy freedoms in this country because we elect leaders who may differ from us on theology, but understand that exercising those freedoms is paramount to being an American.

Corruption clearly knows no political boundaries and conservatives should purge themselves as much as possible (I'm not an idealist, we are human after all) of the simmering Foleys, Neys, Delays, Hasterts, etc...that ultimately serve no purpose other than to divide the Republicans and disaffect the conservatives who back them. It's simply a matter of trust: Can we believe that when someone gives their word that they explored every viable alternative or that they are not involved in any malfeasance, it is their bond and not subject to public polls or political expedience.

Nationalism is quickly becoming an "intolerant tradition" in an increasingly PC world. We need leaders who will not shun their Constitutional duty to "protect each of them [States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." So "peace at any price" may be a nice sound bite, but it flies in the face of our elected officials' civic duty. We need a leader who can convince the American people that this is a fight we should make together as a country united against a common foe- in this case radical Islam. We had that in Afganistan and diverted precious resources that could have stabilized it into Iraq and neither fight is winnable given our current strategy and methods. We need a Commander in Chief who doesn't defer responsibility to generals, his advisers or his Secretary of Defense. Americans will fight when necessary, but it should not be half-heartedly. Illegial immigration is an extension of nationalism issue where we need leaders who recognize that this is a sovereign country with borders for a reason: to separate us from everyone else. Without limits you can have no identity, national or individual.

Individualism is on a similar path to antiquity as nationalism. We need officials to stand up for self-reliance and consequently smaller government as a result. The only things the Constitution mandates about the duties of the federal government is to protect us and run the Post Office. Everything else it does now is what we added on to remove the burden of self-control and free thought from its citizens. We need leaders who don't perpuate the victimization of their people by convincing them that more government is the answer to their ills.

Slacker
This link from Dean Barnett's latest FAQ: (it's on the blog list right now at the top)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/135814/54

This is the second link that I have seen from the netroots area that shows they are not yet satisfied with their results. They want more, and they're not going to take moderates sitting down. The questions I think that are standing out are how far do they want to go and do they have the power within the party to pull in their direction?

I too hope that the moderates will stand their ground, but things like this make me wonder - and I hope make you wonder as well.

Jander - While I want bi-partisanship too, there exists too much of a good thing in that area as well. I hope there is some gridlock in the debates of Congress in the future as well. Some of the best decisions made for this country have been through solid compromise, as we all know. Let's for now sit back and enjoy the ride - collecting data along the way, of course.

Songo's hahahaha
It's funny. Whenever Leftists are confronted with facts, they turn up the volume or change the subject. Bet on it.

Songo. Keep laughing, my friend. Laugh all the way until the scimitar begins sawing your neck.

Love to all.

Mao keep your chin up
Your English is better than most American highschool graduates.

And while I'm not convinced it was a conscious decision on Bush's part to throw the election (basically because he's not bright enough to come up with that on his own or keep it to himself for that matter), I do think Bush is an opportunistic liberal president.

I'll finish this up after dinner....

Gone for the weekend
It's truly been an interesting week, I'll see you all around next week!

Songo
This is short enough for anyone.
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com
Click on the PREVIEW button.

This requires a fast link
It is long and you won't want to miss any.
Start button for movie is at the end of text introduction, on the left side.
http://www.AmericanCongressForTruth.org

Hey guys;
I know it is hard to ignore the childish insults from some of these immature Democrats but there are a few of them with whom we can actually have logical discorse.
Use a rifle instead of a cannon.
Try to keep casualties down.
We may need each other's help in the future.
What has happened is not good for anyone.

DavidMack:
Actually, David, my earlier post was correct, and the Senate votes to either convict or acquit on Articles of Impeachment.

http://law.rwu.edu/sites/lawlibrary/content/pdf/llino3.pdf#search='presidential%20impeachment%20process'

Further, the Articles of Impeachment do, in fact, have to allege a crime. I quote from the Constitution: Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now, as to whether or not Democrats are going to try to portray policy differences as any of the above, well..... that was the point of my earlier post.

As I wrote earlier, Clinton's impeachment was for a crime, i.e. perjury. Bush hasn't committed any crimes.

If the Dems want to play semantic games, they are going to make themselves look beyond ridiculous to the viewing public; it is sure political suicide.


A quick point about impeachment
Despite the fantansies of Conyers and his ilk, Bush will not be impeached because the public quite simply isn't in the mood. They want change, not mutiny. They want recognition of their voice, not being drowned out by a different party's selfish agenda. The Democrats are intellectually bankrupt as a group, but there are a few of them who are wise enough to know that impeachment as BrianR accurately states requires some criminal offense to which Bush is innocent by every credible analysis of the FISA rulings and as for the Iraq intelligence- again you can't pin any kind of criminality for that on Bush. Second- the Democrats do not want to appear vengeful by wasting precious time trying to dangle Bush while they could be trampling all over our Constitutional rights and raising our taxes to pay for it. So when they say impeachment is off the table, it's because it's in their own best interest to forget about it and concentrate on what they really want: The Oval Office in '08.

UsaBeliever, Dean the man of the year?
You are correct that there has been quite a bit of debate in demo circles regarding Dean's party building strategy. Here's a link to a NY Times article from before the election. There was and is tension between Schumer and Rahm Emanual (the Senate and House managers of the campaign) and Howard Dean who is the DNC chairman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/weekinreview/05zele.html

Dean is the architect of the democrat "50 state strategy" which some old-school dems think is a stupid losing strategy. Schumer and Emanual wanted to pour more of the DNC money than Dean into regions of traditional democrat strength. Dean said its no, we are not going to write off the west, midwest and South, you can't win the ultimate prize, the White House without them.

Dean has been working to build up the party in areas that are more republican than democrat. He worked out a hard fought compromise with Schumer and Emmanual on how to divvy up DNC funds for this election. And, in fact, Schumer actually implemented Dean's strategy by recruiting McCaskill of Missouri and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to run for the senate, both of whom won. Very smart moves!

Naturally there will be debate now that the election is over about who was the smartest. Wins like Virginia and Montana and the fact that Ford even had a prayer in TN make it look like Dean is on to something. Carville is very old school and looking a bit long in the tooth. In the personal rivalry between them to be the go-to guy for the dems, I would bet on Dean - see link on the internal struggle to claim credit here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09recon.html?pagewanted=2

Anyway,Dean's strategy is essentially centrist. You don't build up the Demo party in places like Missouri, Virginia, Montana, and Ohio by pushing lunatic fringe ideas. I like Dean's strategy.

The interesting person to watch is of course Clinton. In spite of the common wisdom, she is not a forgone conclusion for the 2008 nominee. Others will throw their hats in the ring. And many democrats see her as a surprisingly effective senator and bridge builder to moderate republicans -- and even some evangelicals!! They think she ought to build her long term career and ultimate legacy in the Senate where she is a surprisingly smooth behind the scenes consensus builder. See the Atlantic cover article recently (though you may have to be a subscriber to see the entire article and the meat of it is several pages in):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

You WERE betrayed!
And I STILL don't trust the mealy-mouthed lair now occupying the White House. The timing of the Rumsfeld "firing" stinks to high heaven.

Waiting until AFTER the election to do so (when doing so BEFORE the election might well have kept the Republicans in one or both houses of Congress in power) simply leads me to believe that Bush and his Cabal are far more interested in holding onto their OWN power. And it would appear they are willing to do ANYTHING…including sacrificing their own members of Congress…to hang onto it.

But, sadly, when Bush announced Rumsfeld's "firing" (and conceded that he once again LIED to all of us about his intentions in the process) I immediately thought of all the young men and women who have now died in Iraq for absolutely NO OTHER REASON but to keep this crowd firmly in power.

And, while they may have lost a political "battle" by the Democrats now taking over both houses of Congress, my hunch is these SOBs have yet to concede defeat in their ongoing political "war" to rule the planet. I mean, after all, why worry about who controls Congress when Bush simply ignores (with signing statements) everything they pass anyway?


Could Bush's grand strategy have been little more than throwing his Republican cohorts in the Congress to the wolves NOW so as to get the Democrats in power in time to let THEM screw things up for 2008? Then, he and his neocon handlers could once again go after the "big prize" …putting another one of "their own" in the White House bully pulpit?

Be afraid....be VERY afraid!

The tale of Songo...
Songo wrote "I tell you that terrorism is an ECONOMIC problem that is fueled by our blind and excessive consumption of oil"

This is the same liberal treehugger garbage that Democrats have bought hook, line and sinker. Yes we all know that Bush went into Iraq to steal their oil and why is it that after 3 years Iraqis still have control of it- is he biding his time? Yes we are a nation of the environmentally damned as we read on Al Gore's internet all day long. Oh I'm sure we can't wait for another unbiased global warming catastrophe weather report culled from "The Day After Tomorrow" script. It saddens me to see Americans duped so easily into believing this tripe, but this is a free country (at least at the moment) and there is no minimum IQ requirement for voting as the last election bears me out. These are the same folks that shout conspiracy when they talk about 9/11 as though Rove remotely piloted both planes into the Twin Towers, set off a bomb in the Pentagon and shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania all by himself and arrived back in time for brunch. So please consider the source when reading his ravings, and by all means donate generously to Bellevue so that he can keep receiving his medication.