1. write out a plan
2. send it to White House
3. Bush admin lays a huge collective turd on it
4.
5. profit

1/15/2007 11:10:40 AM

Quote :

"Thanks, Bush. Thanks for making the rest of the world pissed at us even more than before."

pathetic. SInce the President's job is to be popular and all.

And who cares about gallop polls...the real poll is an election and he has seemed to pass both of those.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 1:15:10 PM

I would think that garnering favorable world opinion would actually be one of the president's necessary duties.

1/15/2007 1:41:38 PM

You've got him mixed up with the Secretary of State.

1/15/2007 1:49:31 PM

Ooohhh I see, like a good cop bad cop thing, right?

1/15/2007 1:58:59 PM

He's not making her job any easier.

1/15/2007 1:59:02 PM

^^^,^^^^

he's made much of the world hate our country, not just him (or at the very least our country's policies). other countries don't care if they're talking to rice or anyone else in bush's admin. -- they're all mouthpieces for the same man.

1/15/2007 2:08:57 PM

Quote :

"And who cares about gallop polls...the real poll is an election and he has seemed to pass both of those."

Quote :

"'As the head of the Republican Party, I share a large part of the responsibility. You look at it race by race, it was close. The cumulative effect, however, was not too close. It was a thumping.' - President George W. Bush on November 8th, 2006, commenting on the midterm elections"

It appears that in the last "real poll", George W. Bush didn't fair too well...

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 2:10:17 PM

So...George Bush lost his congressional elections? Son of a bitch, I would have voted for him had I known he was running.

1/15/2007 3:31:01 PM

Oh don't be a smart ass. You know damn well the elections were a referendum on him.

1/15/2007 3:33:25 PM

To sarijoul: So, what was Bill Clinton doing to make the world hate us when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time?

To TypeA: So, you're admitting that the Democrats put political expediency over their true beliefs?

Quote :

"You can't really knock a politician for playing politics when it's the fickle voters of this nation that are electing them."

I can and do knock any elected official for such an approach. It is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

To RedGuard: As Joe Lieberman--who is hardly a right-wing kook--said on Meet the Press on Sunday, and I'm paraphrasing, there are two ways to exit a war: in victory or in defeat. I'm saying that the Democrats have offered nothing except plans for defeat--and defeat has repercussions well beyond Iraq. In addition, the Democrats do NOT have unanimity on any plan of which I am aware.

I agree with you that we may have to begin multilateral talks with Iran and Syria to prevent a widening of the war in the Middle East. If the talks were to be unilateral, the chance of failure is much greater because--surprise!--these countries don't want the United States, the "Great Satan," to succeed at anything--except failure. In addition, I certainly hope that no one is suggesting talks with al-Qaeda or the like--they don't want us to talk; they want us to die.

Think about it.

1/15/2007 9:39:57 PM

Quote :

"Democrats do NOT have unanimity on any plan of which I am aware"

I wish the press would admit that Republicans have the same "issue".

But, more importantly, in the past 2 years Lieberman has done nothing other than parrot White House talking points on the war, so using him to prove that even Democrats can understand that we must "win" is pointless.

1/15/2007 10:31:56 PM

Quote :

"As Joe Lieberman--who is hardly a right-wing kook"

he may not be a kook, but he is right wing.

1/15/2007 10:51:22 PM

The Bush plan is more soldiers--and it is happening now. BTW, Senator John McCain--a former military officer, former POW, and sometime favorite of liberals--supports the Bush plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/iraq.bush/index.html?eref=rss_world

Please note the following quotation in the abovementioned article: "Democrats oppose adding more troops, Sen. Harry Reid says."

This is a quotation from the article below (from about a month ago): "As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes [chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

Showing, once again, that top Democrats can be both for and against the same plan--depending on which way the political winds are blowing that day.

1/16/2007 12:03:24 AM

Quote :

"The Bush plan is more soldiers--and it is happening now. BTW, Senator John McCain--a former military officer, former POW, and sometime favorite of liberals--supports the Bush plan."

and McCain is wrong. Why not listen to the Iraq Study Group? Is it because the findings are anathema to your political ideology?

1/16/2007 12:13:22 AM

^^^^ If the Democrats taking Congress was a referendum on the war in Iraq, then Lieberman's election was a referendum on his views on Iraq--and he won. He is Senator Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT)--note well that the "D" remains. What does he have to gain by "parrot[ing] the White House talking points"? HE WON! In addition, Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, so your summary dismissal of him is suspect (no extra charge for the alliteration).

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ^]

1/16/2007 12:19:47 AM

^^

Quote :

"And we applaud your work. We take it very seriously, and we'll act on it in a timely fashion. Thank you very much."

George W. Bush
Statement on the Iraq Study Group Report
Washington, DC
December 6, 2006

Can you read?

1/16/2007 12:22:45 AM

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16450775.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1168655147161960.xml&coll=7

The Republican leadership is much more split over the escalation question than the Democratic leadership is.

BUT, more importnat, what the fuck is your point either way? Bush proposed something. the majority of the country opposes it. The majority of members of both parties who are in congress oppose it. who the fuck cares if not every dem opposes it or not every republican is for it. shut the fuck up.


addition:
From a member of the iraq study group:

Quote :

"When your bipartisan panel came to the conclusion that relying on Iraqi forces and embedding U.S. advisors was the right course of action, rather than a surge, did you think that you were reflecting the consensus of the U.S. military at the time? Yes. We sat down with military commanders there and here, and none of them said that additional troops would solve the fundamental cause of violence, which was the absence of national reconciliation. We always asked if additional troops were needed. We asked the question of [Gen. George] Casey and others, we asked it of Marine commanders in Anbar. Do you need additional troops? They all said the same thing: we don't need additional troops at this point; we need to get the Iraqis to assume the responsibility they're supposed to assume..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16543049/site/newsweek/ I am fucking thrilled that Bush decided to listen to their proposals.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason : nonpad]

1/16/2007 12:37:23 AM

^ I made my points. "Thrill" yourself in the asshole, motherfucker.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : V Haha! How's that history degree working out for you? ]

1/16/2007 12:49:30 AM

Haha, hooksaw took Bush for his word on the ISG and got burnt.

1/16/2007 1:02:19 AM

Today, when asked if the Democrats have a strategy for Iraq, Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers replied, "No. . .I have to say that, as a Democrat, I am pretty disappointed."

Power's Bio:

Quote :

"Powers served in the Clinton administration as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs and was the Vice President for International Communications at America Online. Later she was a Vice President at the AOL-Time Warner Foundation. Powers has worked for the New York State Democratic Committee, was the press secretary for Andrew Cuomo for Governor and Communications Director on the mayoral campaign of C. Virginia Fields. She also worked on the 'Vote No on 3' campaign, which overwhelmingly defeated Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ballot initiative to eliminate party primaries. She has consulted for a variety of nonprofit organizations including Human Rights First and the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW). Originally from Alaska and currently based in New York City, Powers is a contributor for Change the Party, a group created to give 'a forum for new voices on the progressive side of American politics and in the Democratic Party.' Since 2004 Powers has been a commentator on political issues from a Democratic perspective for Fox News, and has filled in for Alan Colmes on Hannity & Colmes. Powers had a memorable appearance as Colmes' replacement on the August 24, 2006, episode of Hannity & Colmes, when she challenged Ann Coulter that the war in Afghanistan was going 'swimmingly.' Powers' articles have appeared in USA Today, Elle magazine, the New York Observer, Salon, the New York Post and American Prospect online."

1/16/2007 2:22:44 AM

^ Sorry, I meant Powers' Bio. My mistake.

1/16/2007 3:41:15 AM

oh man, I sure hope I don't get killed in Montreal this week because other countries hate us so much


It's amazing that no one hated us before bush... I guess 93 wtc was his fault too and surely 9-11 would have never happened had a president been in office that the world loved


woohooo yay revisionist history

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 4:08 AM. Reason : fuck it, lets turn the keys to this joint over to the UN!!!!]

1/16/2007 4:07:36 AM

Jesus Christ. Yes, people hated the US before Bush became president. They hate us more now.

1/16/2007 5:55:19 AM

^^ Hasn't added anything to TSB in at least 3 years.

Quote :

" To TypeA: So, you're admitting that the Democrats put political expediency over their true beliefs? Quote : "You can't really knock a politician for playing politics when it's the fickle voters of this nation that are electing them." I can and do knock any elected official for such an approach. It is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. "

It's a shame the rest of America doesn't. Nonetheless, I'm not necessarily admitting to anything. At the time, Bush and crew had done a pretty good job of whipping up the war fever pitch to the point where the ones that voted for it probably felt it was the best thing to do at the time. How could they have known the commander in chief, you know, the one in control of all this, would botch the war something major? Furthermore, you ignored my point that 126 of the Dems DID NOT vote to go to war.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 7:33 AM. Reason : a]

1/16/2007 7:30:12 AM

Quote :

"Since 2004 Powers has been a commentator on political issues from a Democratic perspective for Fox News, and has filled in for Alan Colmes on Hannity & Colmes."

I dont give a shit what she says about anything.

1/16/2007 10:50:14 AM

oh shut the fuck up you bald bitch

I add my opinion just like everyone else here


suck my fucking dick you bitch ass tool, if you don't like my opinion ignore it or get the block feature, you fucking bitch and whine about everyone you disagree with

I disagree with you 99% of the time, but I choose to ignore you

let me guess, you're gonna tell me how you don't care about TWW right?

fuck you faggot

1/16/2007 10:51:28 AM

If your pea brain actually comprehended what you read, you might understand that your rant right there validates my point.

That is, the only thing you add to this section is bitching and moaning and vagina bleeding about how no political figure represents your views. Meanwhile, you are sure to partisan-ize any debate that might be taking place, while not adding anything.

We get it. We know your opinion. But you don't need to state the same thing over and over in every thread. Try to add a little bit more content to the section that that. Try to open your eyes.

1/16/2007 11:29:59 AM

Okay, guys, I have a question...what would happen if we just packed up and left the Middle East, like, today?

And don't say something vague like, "The Middle East would fall into political turmoil and raging warfare." Be specific.

There's too much going on for me to even begin to grasp the situation in the Middle East.

What the fuck are we going to do? And how can anyone defend Bush at this point?

1/16/2007 11:58:28 AM

The conventional wisdom is it turns into a terrorist cesspool if the Iraqi people don't stand up and take control of their country.

Plus there is the ever present influence of Iran and Syria that we don't want to see happen.

If this whole thing weren't about oil, then you'd see us leave and let Iran and Syria have their way. We tried to buy a foothold into securing our oil needs and we failed, it is is as simple as that. And it's laughable to think 21,500 on top of 130,000 is really going to be some magic potion.

1/16/2007 12:11:36 PM

Quote :

"The conventional wisdom is it turns into a terrorist cesspool if the Iraqi people don't stand up and take control of their country."

So it'll just be a lawless land where the people are dominated by terrorism? What does it mean to us?

Quote :

"Plus there is the ever present influence of Iran and Syria that we don't want to see happen."

What don't we want to see happen? Nuclear weapons development? Another terrorist cesspool?

1/16/2007 12:19:33 PM

Quote :

"So it'll just be a lawless land where the people are dominated by terrorism? What does it mean to us?"

I think the idea is, that without a civil, growing democracy, the youth become disgruntled and are more easily swayed to terrorist factions who have the money to throw at them.

Seriously, a hard core dictator is about the only thing that can prevent the religious infighting from happening. Either that, or a massive military force that is going to have to be there for many many years until we can rebuild one that can handle the duty for us.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we fucked up in a major way, and there really isn't a good option for America. Victory as Bush would like to define it is possibly achievable, but it isn't going to happen soon and it certainly isn't going to be cheap.

Quote :

"What don't we want to see happen? Nuclear weapons development? Another terrorist cesspool?"

Let's be clear. The attacks on 9/11 were just what this country needed to have a reason to meddle in middle eastern oil where we were loosing influence in a big way. If we stopped supporting Israel, the threat to us by extreme Islamic terrorist goes to nil. I think if we left Iraq today and gave Iran and Syria the green light to have at it, and stop the support of Israel, they'd end up nuking themselves before they ever considered blowing any of our stuff up.

1/16/2007 12:42:45 PM

Quote :

"Okay, guys, I have a question...what would happen if we just packed up and left the Middle East, like, today? "

When you say leave the Middle East, I assume you mean simply pulling out of Iraq (not pulling troops out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, withdrawaling support from Israel, etc. which I consider seperate, though related issues).

The biggest problem of an immediate withdrawal is that it would most likely lead to a full scale civil war in Iraq. We already have a small scale one, but the violence is lessened by the US military presence (which I believe is why we still see just terrorist attacks and not open warfare, a real possibility because of the size of various militias). This would lead to the following:

1) A full scale Shia v. Sunni War within Iraq that would likely draw in most neighboring nations in the Middle East. Militias would begin engaging in open warfare (versus the terrorist attacks that they resort to now). At best, you'd have a "mere" proxy war with the Iranians backing Shia factions and a coalition of Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan arming, training, and supplying Sunni forces.

2) The Iraqi government collapsing, fracturing along sectarian lines.

3) Most likely at this point, the Kurdish state will declare some sort of independence. This will probably create unrest among Kurdish seperatist factions in Turkey and Iran, bringing increased instability to both nations. Worst case, it may lead to direct involvement of the Turkish military given that the current military head is a hardliner with regards to Kurdish issues. This becomes a complicated matter since Turkey is a NATO member and an open route directly into Europe.

4) There is a good chance that the civil war may spill over into other nations, especially when the universally villified but unifying American presence is removed. You have nations like Syria, where a small Shia and Druze minority rule a predominantly Sunni population. The majority may start to get restless if Syria is seen as supporting an Iran that is arming Shia death squads.

5) The anarchy of a Civil War creates a lawless zone where terrorist organizations like al Qaeda can train. You saw this in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Somalia, during their extended period of civil wars. This is going to create problems for not just the Middle East, but the United States as well.

6) A full blown civil war is going to lead to a mass exodus of refugees into neighboring countries. The longer the fighting, the more people will flee. These large population displacements create a whole host of humanitarian and political issues, sometimes destabilizing their host nations. A worse possibility is that the refugees will come but the governments will turn them away, turning a humanitarian problem into a crisis.

7) A full blown civil war also creates a pocket of anarchy where criminal activity can grow and thrive. This can become a destabilizing element for neighboring nations as these organizations begin to spread across borders.

There are those who say that an immediate American withdrawal is not going to lead to escalated violence but will reduce violence. I disagree with this. Most of the casualties in Iraq are not as a result of insurgent attacks against the United States but are of ethnic and sectarian Iraqi militias attacking other Iraqi ethnic groups and religious sects. There's no evidence to suggest that our withdrawal is going to make them suddenly stop killing their neighbors.


Some say that the US withdrawal would simply force their government to negotiate with opposing factions, but given the weak state of the Iraqi government at this time, I feel that it is more likely to collapse. I know that we will eventually have to leave, and the Iraqis must in the end solve their own problems, but I would like to do what we can to improve the chances of a successful outcome, working to the very end to try and create some security in the country so that factions are more likely to negotiate than engage in violence. This won't be easy and the chances are slim, but given that we've completely destroyed Iraq, we owe them this much.

From what I've seen of the other multiethnic nations that have disintegrated recently, such as Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, if Civil War is not averted now, then when it gets into full speed, it will literally take years of continous warfare, massacres, and ethnic cleansings before factions grow tired and the violence peters out or for a new faction, such as the Taliban, to emerge and finally reunify the country.

There are cynics, like a good friend of mine, who says that we should simply leave and let them kill each other, that letting the violence rage would help the United States by distracting Iran and Saudi Arabia with a massive civil war. That such a war would never impact us. Besides, what better way to get Iran off our backs than to stick them with an uncontrollable proxy war that could hobble them for decades? Yet I cannot stomach the idea of intentionally allowing a war involving twenty five million people to rage simply so that we could get some goofy third-world smartass off our backs.

I believe that this is probably the last real chance that anyone has to avert an all-out civil war in Iraq. If we can't even reduce the violence in the next two years, then I see the United States being forced to withdraw. While sectarian tensions are high, there is still some sense of Iraqi nationalism left in the people; we need to do what we can to hopefully appeal to that and avoid a greater bloodshed.

Don't get me wrong, I've said before that I'm not happy with the administration's approach. While military force is needed, you need to work the problem from all angles, especially diplomacy. This administration has a poor track record in Iraq, and I know that this gives them a poor chance of success. Unfortunately, the problem cannot wait two years for the next election, it needs action now, and we have to work with the administration we have.

1/16/2007 1:41:10 PM

Quote :

"This won't be easy and the chances are slim, but given that we've completely destroyed Iraq, we owe them this much."

Giving it the "ole college try" is pretty redonkulous when you consider it's American lives and money being wasted.

If the chances are so god damned slim, either man up and say that we tried the impossible, or go full bore with the force needed to get the job done. Everything else just reeks of meekness, and I thought Bush was so good about not being meek?

1/16/2007 1:52:59 PM

Quote :

"If the chances are so god damned slim, either man up and say that we tried the impossible, or go full bore with the force needed to get the job done. Everything else just reeks of meekness, and I thought Bush was so good about not being meek?"

What job needs to get done? Setting up a democracy? Is that even possible?

1/16/2007 2:02:17 PM

Quote :

"What job needs to get done? Setting up a democracy? Is that even possible?"

My goal would be to establish some pocket of security for a period long enough to allow the Iraqi government to train up X number of battalions and re-establish the core of a functioning bureaucracy so that money can start flowing in again (I say X because I'm not enough of an expert to know how many would be needed for the government to restore order). Long-term governance is something that the Iraqis will need to figure out.

1/16/2007 2:31:27 PM

That's supposedly been going on. When will the Iraqis begin defending their own country?

1/16/2007 2:56:43 PM

Quote :

"If your pea brain actually comprehended what you read, you might understand that your rant right there validates my point. That is, the only thing you add to this section is bitching and moaning and vagina bleeding about how no political figure represents your views. Meanwhile, you are sure to partisan-ize any debate that might be taking place, while not adding anything. We get it. We know your opinion. But you don't need to state the same thing over and over in every thread. Try to add a little bit more content to the section that that. Try to open your eyes. "

it's not in every thread you fucking tool

and it's always the usual suspects that have something to say about me and it's usually you that says the most

and I don't partisan-ize any more than you do, and you even claim to be conservative... I'll say right now that I don't like current republicans and want a drastic change in their poilicy

but you're too busy hating on me via a goddamn message board when you don't even know me or know a goddamn thing about me other than the shit I say on a message board

so, fuck you... I don't give two flying fucks what your bald headed, roid raging, faggot ass thinks of me, you fucking follow me around and troll me at every fucking point...

that fine, I'll sign off and enjoy this beautiful vermont day... you'll bang away angrily at the keyboard all evening wishing you were someone other than yourself

bitch

1/16/2007 4:39:56 PM

Quote :

"and I don't partisan-ize any more than you do, and you even claim to be conservative... "

Is this a joke? Seriously, is it? Your own statement should have blown your mind, because you just claim I bring party lines into debates (I assume you mean left) then state I claim to be conservative? Are you as confused as a fag at a dyke convention over this one?

You are almost always the first to point out how neither party is doing anything for you, but the dems, oh the dems are just shitting on all your liberties and making your life a living hell. I never make such statements without context like you do. The only thing I have been even mildly vocal about in this section is how horribly a job the Bush admin has done with this war.

And this statement

Quote :

"but you're too busy hating on me via a goddamn message board when you don't even know me or know a goddamn thing about me other than the shit I say on a message board"

gave me quite the giggle when you followed it by this

Quote :

"so, fuck you... I don't give two flying fucks what your bald headed, roid raging, faggot ass thinks of me, you fucking follow me around and troll me at every fucking point..."

Roid raging? Ugh...what?

Quote :

"that fine, I'll sign off and enjoy this beautiful vermont day..."

Yea, I'm jealous to be missing out on those mid teens you got going on up there.

Quote :

"you'll bang away angrily at the keyboard all evening wishing you were someone other than yourself"

I'll tell you this much, on the worst day of my existence, I clicked on your photogallery and all the pain I was feeling went away and it has yet to return. How is that for wishing I was someone else?

1/16/2007 4:54:31 PM

umm yeah, did you have trouble with reading comprehension, I am tired of you riding my nuts on here so thats what I think of you

you know nothing about me other than what I post, but you assume oh so much about me and don't hesitate to post it... in the soap box of all places, then you claim "not to care" or some other cop out reasoning

if you're gonna troll me, you win, you got a reaction

thats how I feel about you

as for the weather, at least it's snowing, enjoy raleighs 34 degree rain

that fine you felt that way, at least I have hair, a damn good life and lifestyle, and a good time wherever I go

and if you want to continue with retarded message board banter, feel free to pm me and I'll give you my phone number and contact info, but I'm tired of you riding my jock every post I make

if I bother you that much, then you need to take care of it because it's not good for you

if you don't know me, blow me... if you want to know me and then form your retarded opinion then have at it

I am done looking just as childish as you do on here repeatedly, I hope that if it keeps up that you, all of your aliases, and myself should all find ourselves suspended from here


haha you gotta look at a photogallery to feel better... I've never even clicked yours, I just lol at the mr clean photoshops and various other threads where people make fun of you

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 5:03:22 PM

Quote :

"Showing, once again, that top Democrats can be both for and against the same plan--depending on which way the political winds are blowing that day."

WOW, YOU MEAN A PARTY CAN BE DIVIDED ON AN ISSUE?

You do realize that the GOP isn't beyond that? There are GOP groups that split from the rest of the party on a variety of issues (environmental issues, for one). McCain is probably the best example of that. When he splits, he's a "maverick". When a Dem splits, it's "flip-flopping" or whatever is the term-du-jour.

1/16/2007 5:11:53 PM

Quote :

"The Bush plan is more soldiers--and it is happening now. BTW, Senator John McCain--a former military officer, former POW, and sometime favorite of liberals--supports the Bush plan."

Yeah, and McCain is also a hopeful for the Republican Presidential nomination (official, correct?). Disagreeing with Bush at this point would hurt him among Republicans. Not a good way to help yourself.

The two party system is just a load of crap about telling the right things to the right people. Democrats are notorious for this, but Republicans aren't much better.

1/16/2007 5:46:33 PM

^^ The Democrats are in power now, girl; be careful what you wish for! And don't give me any of that commander-in-chief bullshit--the Democrats now control the purse strings. If they think we should pull out of Iraq, they should fucking vote to do so. If they think we should stay, then they should support victory, goddammit!

I don't give a shit what anybody says, there are two options: victory or defeat. So which is it? WHAT'S THE FUCKING PLAN, DEMOCRATS?

^ I agree with you about the two-party system: it's the system with the either-or fallacy built right in. I've posted as much numerous times here--but the left-wing wackos just can't absorb it. They only have enough stock material for [old] attacks on Bible-thumping Republicans, and I happen to be neither.

1/17/2007 4:40:26 AM

Quote :

"I don't give a shit what anybody says, there are two options: victory or defeat. So which is it? WHAT'S THE FUCKING PLAN, DEMOCRATS? "

There are more than two options.

1/17/2007 8:28:45 AM

I've got a plan. We steal their babies and make them read nothing but Locke and Rousseau and the like while they listen to Elvis and Michael Jackson all day long. At age 14, we release them.

1/17/2007 10:09:00 AM

^^ There are many plans floating around--but as with any military conflict, they all fall under two categories: victory or defeat. There is no tie--this isn't soccer, for God's sake.

PS: Now Hillary Clinton has changed her Iraq position--since Barack Obama announced. Apparently, she is now for "redeployment," which is obviously more palatable than cut and run. And this is not my take on her new position; Frank Rich, a left-wing flack from The New York Times, said this today on Imus in the Morning.

1/17/2007 12:24:22 PM

Has any right wing nut job contemplated that the Victory they are defining, just isn't possible over any reasonable time frame?

Doesn't that make EVERY plan, the defeat plan?

1/17/2007 12:26:15 PM

How come the left wing nut jobs want to see our country fail so badly?

1/17/2007 12:29:19 PM

I'm not aware of any true American that wants to see that happen. I guess some of those on the left aren't true Americans though, right?

1/17/2007 12:30:44 PM

If you say so

1/17/2007 12:34:44 PM