Thanks George Bush. Thanks for the greatest American foreign policy blunder ever!

Iraq is a flipping disaster, thanks Republicants.

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail....and so far it's working for us (Republicans). Democrats are taking the blame for not getting anything done."

(R) Trent Lott
Roll Call - April 18, 2007

Thanks George Bush. Thanks for the greatest American foreign policy blunder ever!

Posted by: John D's Boy Friend | September 26, 2007 10:26 PM

John E., I know you love me. I know you and BC want to have some sort of Brokeback Mountain experience with me. I also know that it was you Larry Craig was looking for in that airport rest room, but airport security wouldn't let you in.

Now, in reference to the Swamp item here. For all their huffing and puffing, the Dem candidates now say the troops more than likely will be there for a few years yet. Really?!?!?!? While they aren't saying it, the Dem candidates I believe do realize it is VITAL that the U.S. has a military presence there for a few more years.
Those moveon.org loons must not be happy campers tonight.

Our troops have fulfilled all of George W. Bush's primary goals in Iraq. THE IRAQ WAR IS OVER. Time to bring them home.

Who do you believe won the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate? -------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=597

As discussed here, Russert is simply a hack:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007091.html

He could have ended a few political careers if he'd pressed them on sanctuary cities and pointed out all the flaws in their arguments. Instead, he allowed Richardson to just give the same speech he's made time and time again, followed by the same old speech from the other candidates.

Russert did not have a single follow-up; imagine what would have happened if someone who's familiar with this issue and who doesn't support illegal activity had been able to ask this question and then had repeatedly pressed the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A

This is only a debate in the Soviet Union sense.

Our troops have fulfilled all of George W. Bush's primary goals in Iraq. THE IRAQ WAR IS OVER. Time to bring them home.

Posted by: Lou Kaye | September 26, 2007 10:51 PM

All true Lou unless you believe as I do that there is a more sinister agenda based on graft (no-bid contracts) and oil. Mr Bush and Dick Cheney are VERY FRIGHTENING people!!!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a121694salemarrest

The above quotes only confirm what everyone knows--the Dem candidates, who unlike the Kos Kids have some grounding in the real world, are stringing along their party's fanatics with soothing words but have no intention of actually withdrawing any faster than Bush does.

I wonder how the Kos Kids feel, being played for suckers.

Did they get sucked in by the wrong question? How about a question like. Will you end the war by 2013? The answer to such a question could be a simple Yes or No.

There is no good answer to the question "will ALL of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq be gone by 2013"
The operative is ALL, if it means what it says the answer should be NO.
All implies there will be NONE left, not even ONE!

Ooh! A Dose of reality... what a buzzkill!

Sure, now that there has been some progress in iraq the democratic candidates aren't eager to pull out. Shrillery is just going to adjust her answer based on whats happening there i guess. And Obama changing his tune? I'm shocked.

What was that thud? George Soros falling off his wallet after hearing his little minions not spew his paid-for lines. Do you think the wacky liberal money will start to dry up?

The Democratci position on Iraq - sponsored by Jello

Exactly what I've been saying.
Even Obama (who did poorly last night, I thought)is too scared to get us out of there.
He wants to continue to pay trillions to the Iraqis for decades, just like Hillary.
On the Iraq war, we have no viable choice between Hill and Obama and, really, no viable choice between Hill and Obama and whoever the Republicans put up.

In January, 2009, when Hill take over, there will be 130,000 troops in Iraq. When her first term is up there will be 100,000 minimum but probably much closer to 130,000. Like Bush, she'll drop it by a minimal number so she can say she did it, and then it will be business as usual...troops dying, paying $9 or more billion a month to the greedy Iraqis,
contract fraud, corruption
here and there.

Might as well vote for a Republican. They're the war party, and we're a war country, apparently.

For those of us who want to see an end to this quagmire in Iraq YESTERDAY, it is abundantly clear we have only two choices for president: Bill Richardson (as mentioned in the post) and Ron Paul.

This is reality, don't be fooled by platitudes from Obama and Hillary, they will continue the neocon line no matter where the party lines actually are drawn.

ARE WE STILL LOOKING FOR WMDS??

NOW TELL ME, WHO ARE THE REAL SUCKERS??

"I wonder how the Kos Kids feel, being played for suckers."

Apparently the left has the inability to read - because each and every time I've checked Kos, they're taking both Republicans and Dems to task. Along with praising Republicans and Dems that deserve it.

You wouldn't know that though, because it's easier for you to dismiss it as "OMG LIBERAL!!!"

To say that the next president is going to dramatically change our country is, I believe, unrealistic. We are a nation of 300,000,000 people. Big changes have to be made gradually. This isn't like managing a McDonalds. Like it or not we are in this mess which polititians on both sides got us into. No-one is going to pull us out of Iraq tomorrow. Also, when Hillary Clinton says she'll get us out of there if we elect her, we did elect her Senator and she voted to give the President everything he wanted. She and others could have stopped this before it happened. She went along with it because politically she felt it was in her best interest. Now when public support for the war has waned, she's going to try to pretend like her hands are clean. This women is a snake and we deserve better.

2013 is FIVE years from now. And none of the three top Dems pledge to have a U.S. withdrawal by then. Perhaps they should ask the French for advice on how to surrender, because the Dems can't even plan a timely surrender.

Most of the Kos/moveon.org crowd will in the end vote for the Democrat nominee. If they were intellectually honest, they'd start a new party.

These libs probably just feel like they got suckerpunched in the kisser by a two-timing lover. I'll give them some advice from one of their own "Just put some ice on it honey"

If the Democrats can't promise to get us out of Iraq NOW, then I'll not be voting at all!! We have no business there and never did.

[quote]
I know you and BC want to have some sort of Brokeback Mountain experience with me.

Posted by: John D | September 26, 2007 10:50 PM
[/quote]

No John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", all I want from you is to:

1. Admit that you posted your OPINION and tried to pass it off as "fact"

or

2. provide PROOF that your statement that Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does by linking to stories that validate this allegation.

It's so simple that a real journalist, a real man, could do it. Too bad you can't do it.

Rita Marinko,

I hear you.

However, if you don't think things can get worse, just for starters, consider another 2-3 Republican picks for SCOTUS.

As the old admonition goes: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"2013 is FIVE years from now. And none of the three top Dems pledge to have a U.S. withdrawal by then."

That's because everyone with a brain knows there won't be a FULL withdrawal, as in Zero troops or mercenaries in Iraq, five years from now. What do you think that massive Embassy fortress is for?

I'll say it once and I'll say it again: if America wanted OUT of Iraq in an orderly fashion before 2009, they should have elected John Kerry. Instead they went for Commander Cuckoobananas who campaigned EXPLICITLY that US troops would remain in Iraq at least until he leaves office.

Realistically, we're going to be in Iraq for at least the next generation. The difference is in how many troops and what kind of a mission. If you like the way things are going now, vote Republican. If you'd like to see a smaller footprint in Iraq and oppose another war of choice in Iran, vote Democratic.

DV,

Most of teh Snow White and Seven Dwarfs casts was signing of a complete w/d by the end of their first terms just a few weeks ago. Now its just how small of a "footprint"

"That's because everyone with a brain knows there won't be a FULL withdrawal"

Richardson must not have all of his gray matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063.html

Boy Wonder - full bricks short of a load?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/12/obama_withdraw_from_iraq_immediately/5017/

Edwards - his folicles must have destroyed some brain cells:

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070214-iraq-plan/

"Most of teh Snow White and Seven Dwarfs casts was signing of a complete w/d by the end of their first terms just a few weeks ago."

I'm going to try to analyze what you mean, because what you wrote is just short of jibberish.

It really depends on the definition of a "full" withdrawal, and what I am saying is that "full" withdrawal will NOT mean Zero troops. Sorry, Terry, I was speaking in "real world" speak, not campaign rhetoric. Since you're of the avowed stay-the-course-but-make-sure-to-put-it-on-the-nation's-credit-card, I'd think this would be music to your ears.

I want to be clear here, since you are so profoundly anti-withdrawal: do you believe that if a Democrat wins that means there won't be any troops in Iraq in 2013? Unfortunately, I'm a bit too cynical, you could also say realistic, to believe ANYONE'S campaign rhetoric.

Unfortunately, Hillary was right to not make a promise that would be very difficult to live up to. Its actually the more righteous and less cynical route, though I'm not sure its good politics. People prefer "the truth" to the truth, as a voodoo economist like yourself should surely understand.

I'd like out of Iraq by 2013, as would the overwhelming majority of Americans. But do you think that will happen? Do you want that to happen?

Finally: NO WAR WITH IRAN! Let's quit while we're "ahead" with the Iraq fiasco.

The Democratci position on Iraq - sponsored by Jello

Posted by: Terry | September 27, 2007 8:09 AM

You mean sponsored by "Slinky," don't you?

I knew they were going to back down from all of their tough talk about getting us out of Iraq. I've been saying for quite some time now that their anti-Iraq rhetoric hasn't matched their actions in Congress. The Democrats already had two full chances – and the power - to simply vote down any further funding and bring the troops home. They danced around it both times and failed to carry through.

In light of their legislative failures, it doesn't surprise me in the least that they explicitly refuse now to pledge to have the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible - contrary to what a number of them were saying not too long ago. They want the political capital from being "against" the war, without really being against it. In this regard, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right about them.

DV,

I was just quoting theior websites and their actual words - "complete withdrawal". Complete in my vocabulary means 100%. Don't trip while you are backpedaling so fast.

IF, and I said IF, we have to go top war with Iran. It's from the air this time and to hell with the civilian casulaities - similar to Kosovo.

John W,

Slinky goods, but I'll stick with Jello. Goes back to the old saying as "it's like nailing jello to the wall" as far as their position to trop w/d. Also, Jello has no consistancy. Finally, the dems woudl like this because "Everyone Likes Jello"

JOhn W,

Slinky is good, but I like Jello still.

The dems policy on Iraq is "like nailing jello to the wall" constantly chnaging. Their Iraq policy also has the consistancy of jello. Finally, in their minds, "Everyone Likes Jello"