A Brave New World For Our Enemies.

you have the Dems pegged. But I'm not so sure you've got the Iraqi people nailed to the same extent. There may well be millions of Iraqi people who want democratic form of government, but are they in the majority? If they are, it's been a silent majority.

I think there is enough evidence to show that most these people still want to kill each other and to kill anyone who is trying to prevent them from killing each other.

I may well be wrong on that point, I remember being wrong before - once. But even if it isn't a majority of Iraqis who are militant, there are certainly plenty of them cause enough trouble for the Dems to wet their pants over. And since "We the peopel" put them in charge of Congress so they can hold hearings to fish for stuff on Bush, they will eventually bring an ugky end to this venture before it's reasonable to do so.

And we all will pay for it down the raod.

Yes, it does seem there are many who want nothing but to kill each other...the purple fingers seemed to indicate some brave souls wanted to do things differently...unfortunately I believe, those who do want to insight fighting among the Iraqis have taken encouragement in the dem line.

The MSM doing the Dem's bidding never shows the progress in most of the country, therefore it seems that the majority want to kill each other.

I believe the report in Sept will show more progress, and possible hope, and the dems don't want that.

Those who hate Bush may do well to realize they are free to criticize him because he had the guts to do what a leader must...keep the coutry safe. The jokers in the majority obviously don't care about that.

I don't care what the report in September says, the Dems will poo-poo it and say things are worse. And your right the MSM will go right along.

Can't argue with much you said.

Do you think enough "we the people" can see through the fog?

I'm hoping the "silent majority" out there can read the tea leaves, and will be voting the dems out in 08, and there will be hope on the WOT...

Btw, love your latest blog!:)

I think it will be too late by fall 2008. Things in Congress are in a handbasket, and you know where the handbaskets go.

"Btw, love your latest blog!:)"

Does that mean you didn't like the other ones?

America will truly be harmless as an enemy and trecherous as an ally. God help the Iraqis if the Dems win in '08. God help us all.

If the Dems win, it will be the first time a party running on weak defense and higher taxes has ever won the presidency. Have a little faith in "We the People", most of whom don't have a voice in the matter until the night they actually vote and upset the predictions of the elites, AGAIN.

I don't know about handbaskets...but I will be needing a padded cell...:)

I've actually been extremely impressed with all your blogs...:)this one though, is pretty funny...you have a great sense of humor, and I like that...

You got that right...however, I'm thinking they are cooking their goose as we speak...:)

I'm fully expecting that "we the people" will outsmart the pols, the pollsters and the MSM again, and we will see the "deer in the headlights" look from the talking heads like Chris Mathews, when it all comes down in 08, and the dems get the boot...:)

I was just shamelessly fishing for a compliment. Much as BrianR shamelessly plugs his blogs.

Ha! Very good...well...it worked, and I meant it!

I hate to put a damper on your great optimism...but realistically, why on earth should the American people vote for the party that so disappointed their own "base"?

We learned in 2006 exactly what the American public will do if they only hear one tune...both sides of the media spouting NEGATIVES against the GOP. Like it or not there are only TWO viable parties and if the RINO press AGREES with the MSM that Bush and the GOP is c-rap...the only other party to vote for is the Dems.

THIS is the consequences of the "freedom to disagree" Sheila. Please remind your friends of this when we are looking at President Clinton as Commander in Chief.

I cannot sit idly by and say nothing when a Republican is wrong, in particular on the war. I will actively look to support a replacement for Gordon Smith in Oregon for example during the primary process. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is still evil. I cannot support a politician who does not recognize the war on terror as the central issue of our time, and fully support its prosecution. If that means supporting Lieberman over Voinovich, I am willing to go there. However, since all of the Democrats but a couple are wrong on the war, the place to "protest" is in finding, promoting, and voting for replacements in the primaries, not sitting out the general election.

By the way, the RINO press as you call them are not all anti Bush. Hannity said on yesterdays show that while he has disagreed on several issues, history will judge Bush based on the response to 9/11 and the war above all, and based on this, he will be judged a great President. Lieberman (who was his guest when he said it) agreed.

It seems like an impossible task, but the dems have really shown how pathetic they are...they are looked upon as scum. Now that they've been in the majority long enough to give the American people a taste of where they would take the country if thay had total control, I think they will vote for sanity, not lunacy. I will remain optimistic!

I have been saying it doesn't help our cause to continue to demean the president and our party...and you are right that in 06 it sent reasonable dems back to the left.

I still believe that when the average Joe starts paying attention to the presidential election, the standouts will be on our side, the left will look too extreme, and the dems will have cooked their goose with those who are paying attention now.

It is amazing to me that some people think the WOT just isn't a serious matter...what is the indication that that is so?

It's sad to think that the country doesn't see this side of the Democrats. They've heard that "Bush lied, people died," for so long that the lie has become the myth, and 70% think that we need to get out of Iraq.

The talk shows this morning didn't give me much hope. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but Hillary is stronger than ever, and McCain, one of our three "top tier" is tanking.

I believe that God can perform another miracle as he did in 2000, when Bush was elected. That's our only hope! If Bush can pull out a win in Iraq, he will be the biggest come back kid in history.

May God bless America and our troops, and the people in Iraq who are dying for a struggling Democracy.

and according to the RINO press and some posters on TH...the GOP hasn't done any better when THEY were in power.

The GOP had 6 years--and what did they do about the illegals? In the media and on TH, THAT is the ONLY thing that mattered these past few months. Very few seemed to care about the great economy...or the courts...or the 10 million purple fingers...or the fact that we haven't been attacked again.

And if the people that is SUPPOSED to be on the side of the Right didn't care about all those things...why should the voter that DOESN'T share all the concerns of the GOP care?

Sheila, I really wish that the American voter WOULD be selective in their thinking...it sure would make things easier for the absolutes to be selective on when and where they can add their support, unfortunately, for MOST Americans, the ONLY difference they see is what the media tells them and for weeks, the media on BOTH sides have been telling them that the GOP is c-rap...that leaves guess what party to vote for?

No one is telling you to "say nothing" when you disagree. This isn't, has never been, about your "right" to disagree.

You are a teacher...do you get to "disagree" about religion or politics with your co-workers and the administration? Of course you do...but you also know that there might be consequences for doing so, don't you?

The "choice"...the "right"...is in weighing the consequences with your "need" to express your opinion.

For me, the "right" to push the pro-life issue and/or illegal immigration was NOT worth the real possibility of losing support for the WOT.

Only you can decide if your pet issues is worth it because you have to live with your decision.

As much as I enjoyed your response, it is I believe wishful thinking.

Despite the congress defeat at the hands of the president, was there much coverage? No. Something about immigration instead was clgging up the news channels.

The Democrats are trying very hard to look the reasonable party, admittedly not too difficult at the moment.

We are in the unfortunate position of having to hope for Democrat mistakes to claw back the difference.

Personally I hope Obama is KO'd by Hilary, but she is forced to go to extremes to achieve that, then we might stand a chance.

But at the moment the GOP is in a very dark place.

"Only you can decide if your pet issues is worth it because you have to live with your decision."

I really wish it was only they who have to live with that decision. I am amazed so many people find it hard to grasp the concept. No GOP in power, no WOT.

Do I want them to shut up? Of course I do. Sorry opinions and critism is a problem here, and if the WOT is imprtant and I think it is, then these people should try silence is golden.

wow...you must be a conservative...lol...tell it like it is eh?

No, I do get it. YOu want them to show as much restraint in excercising their "right" to open their mounths as they do in every aspect of their adult world.

Of course, you DO realize that they WILL come at you screaming about "shutting them up" as though they had never told someone who disagreed with them to "shut up" or stood by and allowed someone to do that.

Here's a snippet from Constitutional law professor, Radio talk show host, author, and founding father of Townhall, Hugh Hewitt on the defeatist Republican Senators and the need to perhaps take a loss in the short term to restore the party's core values.

"Parties matter, and the Republican party will purge the defeatists from its ranks, even if it means a horrible cycle or two."

The entire article is here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/07/12/not_worth_fighting_for__defeatist_republican_senators

don't get sucked into it again......

Be careful, watch yourself. I thought you knew better

that he TEACHES law but convicts on hearsay as Hugh Hewitt ADMITTED to doing on the illegal immigration bill...they no longer have any credibility.

I let it slide in the Dubai port deal when expert upon expert told Hugh he was making too big a deal out of it...but when I heard him say that he had NOT read the bill but was reacting on what he HEARD...that was the end of it. If you want to believe someone as irresponsible as that...well that's YOUR problem.

While I will not bother to read anything or listen to anything that man writes or says, it does not surprise me. I've been warning for a very long time that the RINO press don't care about the WOT...if they had they'd never have tried to focus all the attention on keeping the unenforceable laws on illegal immigration that we have now...and they most certainly wouldn't think it's acceptable to go thru a "horrible cycle or two" during a time of war.

JC...are you paying attention here? Will, Jevica, Dave...all of you who insisted that the RINO press supports the GOP and the president on the WOT?

THIS is what happens when you place the war on the back burner...eventually people stop realising there's a fire under it.

was the mantra the NRO was singing prior to 2006 and some of the posters here on TH.

The fact is that it didn't have to be ANY Democratic cycle. In 2004, how many can honestly say the Dems would take over in two short years and that we would be looking at a number "two" cycle in 2008 (actually a COMPLETE FIRST cycle with no Bush to veto any defunding)?

The illegal immigration problem has been around for decades...so has over spending...and anything else you want to use to justify your selective support.

I honestly cannot believe that Hugh Hewitt is talking about a cycle or two of Democratic rule being "necessary" IN TIME OF WAR and none of you "selective supporters" get it...

As Jim said...NO GOP...NO WOT.

"Of course you do...but you also know that there might be consequences for doing so, don't you?" I left a school I taught at over an issue of right and wrong. Sometimes, an issue matters so much, it is worth the negative consequences. That was the case in this school, where I was pressured to do something I thought was clearly wrong. The consequence was worth a principled stand, and I guess since I found another teaching job, it wasn't too big of a consequence.

To me, the one issue that fits that bill, that is, the one issue I can not accept dissent on, is the war. I have a lot of friends and family still in Oregon though I am not. Through my family and friends, I will actively try to bring about the defeat of Gordon Smith, the Republican Senator from Oregon, in the primary, because he has decided the war is not politically expedient and has chosen to vote against it every chance he gets, hoping that will increase his chance of reelection in 08. He sounds pathetic and childish in his "change of heart" speeches, and I cannot in good conscience support him. To me this issue trumps party. I could not in good conscience support an anti-war Republican, and if he wins the nomination may consider a third party candidate. This is the same thing that Lieberman did. He is a liberal in all respects but one. On this one issue, he took a stand and as a consequence, was purged from the Democratic party.

We have a choice, and both options have consequences. We can renominate Voinovich, Smith, Collins, Snowe, Dominici, Lugar, Warner and the rest of the retreat Republicans, or we can attempt to defeat them in the primaries. It is easy to do as I see some doing and say, well, 70% are against the war, I guess we better give up on it so we can win elections. It is much harder to say that this issue is so important, that I will stand up to the 70% and the media that feed their pessimism and try to convince them to keep fighting. This is the decision Republicans of good conscience must make, and it will be hard with the enmity of the television and print media, Hollywood, Europe, and the intelligensia on our campuses to win this fight for the heart and mind of the masses.

So Sanity, and Jim, my question for you is, if we get anti war GOP elected in 08, are we better off than if we stand on this issue and get anti war Democrats elected who defeat pro vctory Republicans? To me, this is the Absolute issue.

Anyone heard that Pelosi may be challenged next election from Cindy Sheehan because she has not ended the war? The Republicans have fractured over immigration and the war, but Democrats are fracturing too. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I would not be surprised to see a far left candidate like Kusinich run independent. This is the most fragile the two party system has been since the pre FDR years. I wonder if we are headed for an era of 3 or 4 parties and coalition government, like is found in Israel and most of Europe.

The Dems have controlled Congress now for about 6 months, and managed to take it to approval levels never before seen since the advent of polling -- a whole new low.

The Dems will have to live with the consequences of their actions, as they can't point their fingers at the GOP now and say its their fault.

This would actually be a sterling moment for the GOP if the man in the WH was actually able to distinguish himself from them. Unfortunately, he can't, as he's also managed to take his own approval rating into the cellar by teaming with the Dems to try to push scamnesty down the throats of the American people. His administration is still refusing to build the fence.

Yet another missed opportunity for the GOP.

This is what happens when the GOP backs RINOs for office. A Giuliani presidency would make Bush's look like the good old days of conservatism.

My usual shameless plug, for my new essay, up now!

It does not look good for the GOP right now. Conservatives are too busy trying to defeat Republicans, rather than concentrate on defeating Democrats. Hewitt's article just goes to show that.

A bad cycle or two? Heaven forbid, but they will probably get their wish!

I think the reason Sanity 102 is freaking out was the concept that losing is ok, what is more 8 years of Democrat majority in a time of war is good.

Take the pro-life issue, there are known republicans who are pro choice or shall we say strangely quiet on pro-life. Yet pro life campaigners vote GOP.

By all means if you live in a state with an anti-war senator attempt to oust them, but I would rather a GOP majority with a few naysayers, after all that is what party whips are for, than a democrat majority with 100% (granted minus one) are against the WOT.

Seeing as you live in a state where republicans are practically unelectable, forgive me if I treat campaign strategy from you with a little scepticism.

Wow, this is quite a discussion here...looks like I've missed a major debate...

wish it weren't such a serious matter for our country, though.

It's pretty obvious we have some serious days ahead, and the decisions we all make will have a major impact on the world, not just on our country...

I'll try add my two cent...it's clear the passions run deep on all sides.

I think we share the same belief that our country won't survive the dems in total control in a time of war against not only our country but the civilized world.

The way I see it the dems don't have a clue about the dangers that we face...and I think we agree that the GOP with it's flaws is the only choice, because we see the WOT as a threat the dems won't deal with.

Jim, your comment "I would rather a GOP majority with a few naysayers, after all that'a what party whips are for, than a democrat majority with 100% (granted minus one)are against the WOT"...a very good assessment.

I understand your thoughts, and I agree with Jim's answer to you.

We are in agreement the WOT is extremely important in the next election.

I believe to work for conservatives where they are running, and to work for a majority is critical, but if there isn't a good alternative to the "naysayers" to put a dem in is not a good thing, because it's all about having the ability to get the votes to continue the critical WOT.

In my opinion we can't afford to be in the minority, it's much better to have a majority even if we have a few "naysayers" as Jim says.

We won't have any voice in 100% of the issues if the dems are in power.

On this one I disagree with Hugh...to have a "loss short term" in such a critical time in our history, could become a loss for all time...

If this war is a serious matter threatening our very existance, as I believe it is, losing is not an option ( as we have discussed before)...:)

"a bad cycle or two" with the brand of dems we have today, would be catastrophic to the country...has Hugh been listening to these extremists?

Sanity is a tough debater...I think she and Scottie can hold their own...:)

I agree with your first two paragraphs...

The dems are showing America what they are all about...and their polls seem to reflect the fact that "we the people" are disgusted with their performance.

That is encouraging to me...

The sixties hippies have grown up, and are now in the majority, and running for the WH, and the leftie "flower generation" doesn't have the cashews to do what is needed to protect the country.

Will be right over...and can predict I probably won't see things your way...sigh.

Jim, you may want to check out my blog before making that statement.

It's kind of along the lines of: "Since you've been through a hurricane, I don't want to hear your thoughts on rainfall", if you get my drift.


Sheila, what can I say? Yeah, I'm saure we won't agree.

But I love ya anyway!

I get the part of Hugh's "getting rid of anyone that is not taking the WOT seriously"...but the "going thru 2 cycles of horrific Democratic rule" seems to have escaped all you "WOT Supporters".

We live in a country where the MAJORITY makes the rules. And IF the war is THE major issue, then how can we possibly afford 8 years of a Democratic Congress with no GOP in the WH to veto defunding the troops?

So to answer your question...Will, I think you know that I am NOT a GOP...I do not vote for someone because he has an "R" in front of his name...but if the GOP is destroyed...where do people like me...for whom the WOT trumps everything...where do we go?

The scary thing is that the RINO press "losing for the good of the nation" is setting up people to get used to the idea of losing in 2008 and 2012...

Of course this helps when it gets close to the election and someone pushes the "illegal immigration" button--and the "base" goes off and attack the GOP again.

"Good" material for talk show radio, columnist, and Fox...oh yeah and the Dems and ultimately the terrorists.

It seems right now Rush is back in the business of knocking the dems, instead of the president and the only party that has any hope of staying on the offense against terror...hope he keeps it up through 08...and it isn't too late...

Ha! That's saying a lot!

I guess us Left Coasters have to hang together through thick and thin...

We seem to agree on a few things, at least!

I disagree with the first part of your response

I've a post up that explains my reasoning for NOT allowing the selective supporters of Bush and the GOP to slide...but let me ask you (and your friends) this:

How do we win the WOT with one or two cycles (4 to 8 years) of a Dem Congress AND a Dem president?

I believe that Wil, Dave, Jevica, JC, Scottie doesn't think that's possible.

Yet Hugh Hewitt said that a possible 8 years of Democrats that WILL NOT FIGHT OR WIN THE WOT is needed...

And NONE of these guys blinked.

Why?

Our goals are certainly the same; it's more on the tactics that we differ.

Do we agree that the WOT is the most critical issue America faces? You document the terrorist's radical fanaticism and hatred on your blog...

The party seems to be divided, but I heard a poll on the News Report with Britt Hume that 80% of republicans are happy with Bush, and he's at 39% approval rating now, can't remember the poll. That could mean people are seeing the dangers we face, and are waking up to the fact that Bush has kept the country from further attack.


I am convinced that this is not something we can ignore, and hope will be OK in the future, if the dems gain power for a couple of "cycles". We will be putting the country at risk, and the world in a more dangerous position in this battle against radicalism.

I'll be over shortly!

Well, you are right, and one thing is for sure we are definitely fortunate to be living here...and we can keep working on Sacramento...

Btw, is your daughter living on the Left Coast since her marriage?

The defeatism of the Dems appears political opportunism. Base, contemptible political opportunism, but political opportunism, nevertheless.

The defeatism of some GOPers smacks of outright cowardice. Yellow, base, spineless cowardice.

Pres Bush and I part ways on many things, but his resoluteness in the GWOT and the battle in Iraq goes far beyond commendable and I have to agree with Sen Lieberman.

I totally agree on the dems...it's irresponsible to put the nation at risk for political opportunism. I am not proud of the repubs who joined the chorus...

As to the president, he knows what the dangers are, and he knows his constitutional responsibility to defend the country, and I'm glad he's not giving an inch...

Our troops deserve better than they are getting from the cut and run party...Lieberman has guts...he understands the threat we face from terrorist extremists...

Thank goodness there are a few who have the guts to stand against terrorism. We definitely can't afford to have those who don't, running the country.

Well, she doesn't get married until 23 Sep, but yeah, she lives about 4 miles away. She doesn't finish college until next year. Her fiance is also a local boy, so I don't think they'll be going anywhere, which makes a daddy's heart sing!

That's terrific...

have you seen the commercial of the guy meeting his daufghter's boyfriend, and he's telling him about her cell phone that has HIS picture in it...he says "my picture is right next to yours, like I'm watching you EVERY second"...and then he says "have a good time" with this look that says "and don't you forget it"...as they leave...

It's really a cute example of the difficulty of letting little girls grow up, and the constant worry about their dates... it must be hard on you Dads...

are 8, 6, and 2 weeks...I can't even imagine dating yet

Two WEEKS! You must be a busy guy!

My Dad had three daughters...I'm sure we drove him nuts when we got to the dating age...:)

I LOVE that commercial!

I laugh my arse off every time I see it, because it's SO TRUE!

It's one of the good ones...

That kid looked a little worried...love it!

Do you ever eat, drink, sleep, go to the bathroom...

I'm envisioning the new Brian...300 lbs. sitting on the bed, with Carls Jr wrappers/pizza boxes strewn all over the room...a laptop on the bed with you...never leaving the room...forever entrenched in the TH computer game...slowly but surely going mad...LOL

Do you know where your children are?...:)

...that is hilarious!!

Strange how most all of them were for the Iraq action. Then, as you say, they pin it on Bush as his war. It’s amazing to me how libs often benefit from Repubs, politically. If you factor libs votes, they should be sleepless in Seatle.

Here is a thought, maybe there's something to it or maybe not. We have our share of political influence in (causing) problems. Seems in Iraq there is not enough politics going on – i.e. the touted political solution. But I think Iraq needs more than “a” political solution. I am not that naïve.

It did kinda make me laugh...LOL

New word for the dictionary...:)

Yeah xpressit...it's funny how the dems change colors so easily...from red white and blue to yellow...

It's truly disgusting...

Don't forget, the times on this site are actually EST, so here in Cali it's three hours earlier than the timestamp on the comment.

Here's an accurate mental image for you: 6'2", 195 pounds, silver hair, jeans and tank top, iced latte or martini (depending on the time of day) on the desktop in my home office, leaning back in my judge's chair with my bare feet on the desk, keyboard in my lap, as I peruse my post on my 19" plasma display, Enya playing softly in the background from my home entertainment system.

Yeah, retirement is just hell.

Whew! Glad to hear it! I was getting worried about you...

So, will you be auditioning for the next "Oceans 13"?

Sounds like you could replace ol' loonie Clooney, and nobody would miss him...:)

Seems the ol' Bri ego is intact...HAHAHA!

LOL


Believe me, anyone who's ever been in show biz ain't lacking in the ego department. At least I'm honest about it.

As to the "Ocean's" movies, proof positive of the decline of standards in Hollyweird.

Ya know, I keep tossing around the idea of dabbling back in it again, now that I have the time, but then something will happen that'll remind me of all the things I hated about it, primarily the game-playing and politics.

There were times I'd have to bite my tongue to keep myself from getting thrown off the set for telling some brain-dead lib he/she didn't know what they were talking about.

Or I wouldn't get parts because of my politics; that happened more than once.

And now that I'm older, and financially secure, I have even *less* inclination to put up with the BS.

Mind you I'm not endorsing the movie...haven't see any of them...

Unfortunately I rarely go to movies anymore due to the "weirdness" and the propaganda...

turn off my web cam!

"...300 lbs. sitting on the bed, with Carls Jr wrappers/pizza boxes strewn all over the room...a laptop on the bed with you...never leaving the room...forever entrenched in the TH computer game...slowly but surely going mad..."

Wow, talk about deja vu. Do you do card tricks too Sheila?

Oh man, you're cracking me up! LOL!