Nancy Pelosi is Not My Speaker!
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 01:19PM **UPDATE**
For those of you who didn't get the title, "Nancy Pelosi is Not My Speaker", it was based on the 6 years of hearing this slogan from the left (posted right):
**END UPDATE**
No, she is my Speaker, but it was interesting being a Democrat for a moment. "Voter fraud! I want a recount! Voter suppression!"
Not really. Democrats did those things, but it's inconsequential because they did so well in yesterday's election.
Democrats pretty much blew the doors off of the US House of Representative to take control, giving Nancy Pelosi the honor she doesn’t deserve of being the Speaker of the House. Her sophomoric politics and elementary rhetoric resembles something more like a frat girl on a drinking binge at her liberal university, but at least we don’t have to say “Speaker Murtha”.
The American people have spoken, and because of the democratic process that’s a good thing. It didn't help that Pres. Bush is not a great communicator. What’s disappointing is not a loss of power; Republicans aren’t about power. They’re about quality. So when perverted politicians like D-Jim Webb of Virginia can unseat Senator R-George Allen, it’s a disappointment. Don't compare him to Tom Foley; he's gone and we're glad, and he didn't write smut in his IMs like Webb, who wrote:
– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”
– Something to Die For: "Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."
Now there's a leader Virginia can be proud of!
When quality Senators like Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania can be defeated by D-Bob Casey, or what’s worse a lady like D-Claire McCaskill can defeat Jim Talent in Missouri, or Michael Steel of Maryland defeated by D-Carin, there is simply no accounting for taste.
Here is a must read article by Orson Scott Card, a Democrat who explains why he voted Republican yesterday:
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
Can We Win?
That is certainly not what most who call for withdrawal intend. They see Americans dying and they have no hope of victory. The Iraq War (as they call it) is costing lives and shows no sign of ending. Meanwhile, Iran is getting nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them, Syria and Iran are sponsoring continuing and escalating attacks on Israel -- how can we possibly "win" a war that threatens constantly to widen? Let's cut our losses, retire to our shores, and ...
And will you please stop and think for a moment?
There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.
Every American in the world then becomes a target. And, because we have announced that we will do nothing to protect them, we will soon be trading only with nations that have enough strength to protect their own shores and borders.
Only ... what nations are those ? Not Taiwan. If they saw us abandon Iraq, what conclusion could they reach except this one: They'd better accommodate with China now, when they can still get decent terms, than wait for America to walk away from them the way we walked away from Vietnam and Iraq.
We cannot win by going home. In a short time, "home" would become a very different place, as our own prosperity and safety steadily diminished. Isolationism is a dead end. If we lose our will to protect the things that support our own prosperity, then what can we expect but the end of that prosperity -- and of any vestige of safety, as well?
The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning and that the course President Bush is pursuing is, in fact, the wisest one.
READ THE WHOLE THING This article is excellent, also: Pelosi’s Platform
At the end of the day, this election has shown that Americans are extremely gullible and cynical, not a good combination at the voting booth. They are uniformed and ignorant. Yes, this includes some Republicans. America gets what she deserves. I wonder how many voters actually know who Nancy Pelosi is?
The Dems promise higher taxes, even though this post 9/11 economy is resurrected by the George W. Bush tax cuts. We live in an economy that may be the best America has ever experienced, all in the aftermath of a devastating financial hit by hijackers into America’s biggest cities and financial districts. Unemployment is at 4.4% Do voters really think Nancy Pelosi will give them that? Charles Rangel? Harry Reid? It is wishful thinking or complete and utter ignorance.
Dems pimp themselves as having a moral high ground but it takes little investigating to realize where the real “culture of corruption” is.
Dems promote a culture of death as evidenced through their support of Michael Schaivo and even partial birth abortion, or at least abortion on demand.
But who cares? The real issue is the war in Iraq, which is actually a War on Terror, but evidently this is a concept too hard for most Americans to grasp. This may be the most worst aspect of the elections. The constant drum beat of “we need change in Iraq!” with NO PLAN FROM DEMOCRATS finally worked. War is not a Burger King drive through where you get it your way in 5 minutes or less. With no respect for history we’re doomed to repeat past mistakes. Think Vietnam.
Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down as Secretary of Defense. That's probably a good thing, although Dems will inevitably hijack this event and convince people it happened because they've been saying it should for so long.
Republicans still have the Executive Branch and are working on the Supreme Court. It's remarkable and historic that Republicans have had control for 6 years of the House and Senate under a Republican president, but it couldn't last.
America shouldn't have to but can deal with an economy that will decline, educational choices that will decrease and obnoxious Democratic politicians thinking they make the sun shine. What cannot be tolerated is their war on the unborn and their war on the war on terror. My friend Fr. Bashar from Baghdad wrote this to me just before the election:
"Support MR. Bush he could make the needed change and be sure that he got the enemy, and he will finish the job. be proud of your army:women and men ...but correcting the process part of the job ...if the US Army will withdraw, you will see more evil acts on the streets of Iraq. We are praying for all those who would help the Iraqis."
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/762579
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (93)
November 8 2006
I was so certain America was intelligent enough to see passed the idiocy and biased commentaries by secular progressives and mainstream media, sadly they/we are not. I cry for America.
I agree with you, Americans are gullible. And we are all going to pay dearly for this tragic outcome.
The neo-con reign of terror is over. Americia is wide awake once again.
No, whining sounds like this: "You stole the election! No, you stole BOTH elections!" or "We should get rid of the electoral college!" or "Republicans only won because they rigged the voting machines!" Like that.
Yes, Republicans did suffer a pretty crushing blow. No doubt. Americans have spoken. Unfortunately they don't know what they're talking about!
Did you just read the title or what? Libs since 2000 have been saying, "George Bush is not MY president!" I think I made it clear in the first sentence I was kidding. I, unlike libs, totally accept the authority of elected officials, even if they're stupid, wrong or evil. This is part of the American Way.
Really?? So you're admitting the Democrat's "changing course" means to spend a couple years on political witch hunts?
Is it possible for a liberal to be gracious in victory? Didn't think so. But remember, Hitler was in power, and Saddam was an elected official, but that doesn't mean they were good for our country.
America gets what it deserves. I'm going to raise hell along the way, though, because friends don't let friends vote Democrat.
So, Stryker, assuming you're a Dem, what's the plan for Iraq? How do you plan to IMPROVE on the economy?
Now whether unrealistic Democrat voters believe they get sole credit is immaterial to the indisputable fact that there was intensified pressure for his removal from all sides.
Why do you think 'it's probably a good thing'?.
Because a significant amount of what has and is happening in Iraq is attributable to his flawed decisions and management? Me too.
This leads to the glaring conclusion-- that the Bush administration obviously does not have a realistic strategy for winning in Iraq, as it accused Democrat challengers of not having one.
This is logical, unlike much of your non sequitur and emotionally laced dogma.
Re-hash of Webb's writing- I don't care for it, but Sen.McCain says it's ok ""James Webb’s new novel paints a portrait of a modern Vietnam charged with hopes for the future but haunted by the ghosts of its war-torn past..."
It is true that supply-side economics work, they just benefit people differently. There's no denying this economy is strong, but the middle class is not getting its fair share. Do oil companies really merit tax breaks?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1eDReAgtETw&refer=news_index
I'm proud to be American, and proud that my vote is one of the 7000 or so that barred George Allen.
And by the way, it most certainly always is about power.
As I wrote in my latest entry this morning, I think it's rather telling that Muslims and Communists are happy that the Dems are in power.
I called you a whiner. I did not say you did not have free speech that allows you to whine. I just makes you sound like a loser.
“No, whining sounds like this: "You stole the election! No, you stole BOTH elections!" or "We should get rid of the electoral college!" or "Republicans only won because they rigged the voting machines!" Like that.”
When did I say any of those things? Like Letterman said to Bill-O “ You but words in my mouth like you put false facts in your head”.
“Yes, Republicans did suffer a pretty crushing blow. No doubt. Americans have spoken. Unfortunately they don't know what they're talking about!”
Oh, now it is Democracy's fault. Do you propose we scrap the vote now? How anti-American.
“Did you just read the title or what? Libs since 2000 have been saying, "George Bush is not MY president!" I think I made it clear in the first sentence I was kidding. I, unlike libs, totally accept the authority of elected officials, even if they're stupid, wrong or evil. This is part of the American Way”.
SOME liberals said that. Would you like a list of stupid things Republicans have said? The titles you use are akin to the deceitful banners posted on Fox News. You know you meant it, you just want to give the illusion of slightly civil.
“Really?? So you're admitting the Democrat's "changing course" means to spend a couple years on political witch hunts?”
The role of Congress in regard to an ongoing war is funding and oversight. We all know contractor's have committed fraud in Iraq, but have been protected by leaders.. It really looks like the Office of Special Plans cooked the books on pre-war intelligence. These are serious matters that need to be looked into. Since when was prosicuting serious crimes equate to "Witch Hunting"?
“Is it possible for a liberal to be gracious in victory? Didn't think so. But remember, Hitler was in power, and Saddam was an elected official, but that doesn't mean they were good for our country.
America gets what it deserves. I'm going to raise hell along the way, though, because friends don't let friends vote Democrat.”
Keep raising hell. I promise you I will. The difference is I will attack both Dems and Repubs when they deserve it.
With your Guru the Coultergiest getting busted for election fraud in Florida, who knows, you might might move up a notch or two on the hate chart.
“So, Stryker, assuming you're a Dem, what's the plan for Iraq? How do you plan to IMPROVE on the economy?”
Political Parties suck. They divide us for their own greed and lust for power. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any political party.
A timed withdraw which includes Iraq's neighbors. Raise the min. wage, invest in alternative energy, invest in schools and adult re-education to meet the needs of today. I could go on, and on.
"Do you propose we scrap the vote now? How anti-American."
If you'd read my article, you'd see I support the American way, i.e, the democratic electoral process, even when it doesn't go my way. That's more than Democrats can claim.
Republicans have had a lot of success in the last 6 years. Two Presidential elections and a mid-term that gave GOP dominance in the House and Senate. Even Dems of the 90's can't claim that.
Call me a loser if you want, but it isn't just me who lost: America lost.
A point I'm not sure many (but military, like Jo and her family) consider, but the gloating by Dems is offensive to military. First we have John Kerry unapologetic and in your face with the military, now all the uneducated discussion about Iraq... it's pretty pathetic.
The military has been riding a wave of fanatic patriotism for two long now, you had to expect that a protracted war and rising death tolls (on every side) would be something that would make the uniform start to reak after awhile. I really don't know how to put it in more plain terms.
This happens after every 2-3 presidental elections. It is a testament to our great nation that the American people do not wish to see an entrenchment of power. Your cohort, the neo-cons, blew a big chance in the last 8 years with a rising tide of political power. They could have done so much. What you should really be doing is looking back over all the mistakes, all the greed and the scandals, and thinking about how your party can rebound. The Democrats did not win this election, the Republicans and all they stand for lost the election.
Corruption, lies, greed, malace, hegemony, stupidity, and bloodlust have tainted the Republican party and you are seeing the results. The American people should be applauded for what they did as a community yesterday, and you ought to be big enough to recognize that fact.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html
I hope so. That way Dems will have no one to blame their stupidity on when they botch things up, as they assuredly will do.
"This leads to the glaring conclusion-- that the Bush administration obviously does not have a realistic strategy for winning in Iraq, as it accused Democrat challengers of not having one."
We're still waiting for the plan from the liberal nutbags in the Demcoratic party by the way.
"Oh, now it is Democracy's fault. Do you propose we scrap the vote now? How anti-American."
That was the Democratic party's idea 3 elections in a row.
"A timed withdraw which includes Iraq's neighbors. Raise the min. wage, invest in alternative energy, invest in schools and adult re-education to meet the needs of today. I could go on, and on."
And you would run this country straight into the ground in the process. Especially the "raise min. wage" band-aid effect. Why don't you just be honest and say "let's raise the cost of living through the roof!"
"The Democrats did not win this election, the Republicans and all they stand for lost the election."
Exactly right. Which why I laugh when you, stryker, and your ilk all pat yourselves on the back as if you think America all of a sudden snapped to attention and now want big government, high taxes, and zero national security. The Dems won because a large portion of the electorate, hard right conservatives, stayed home. That's it and that's all.
"The dems will overplay their hand like they did in 1992 and elect another GOP congress. Their razor thin majority is hardly a mandate."
They are merely insuring another Republican president, this time a real hard right conservative. I can't wait to see the looks on their faces. I'm going to enjoy the next 2 years, watching the Dems trip over themselves to hurry up and try to come up with some sort of plan for any one of the issues. But they won't. They'll spend the next two years shooting subpoenas at the White House, accomplishing nothing, and forcing everyone to remember why they voted Republican to begin with.
Exactly. And they will have two years to get exposed as not actually having any strategy for the GWOT, immigration or the economy other than "we're not republicans."
The scandal of all this is that the deomocrats campaigned on "changing the course in Iraq" which is a flat out lie. They have no plan other than withdrawal. nacy Pelosi in all her infinite wisdom tonight actually told FOX news that "this is not a war for winning; it is a situation to be solved. Winning can be defined any way you like; there is still the situation to be solved." OK, Mr and Mrs. America, look what you just elected das 3rd in line from the president: someone who doesn't even know that we are at war and does not see winning as reasonable or attainable, but merely a play on words. The terrorists trying to wipe us out all over the world are just "a problem to be solved" not our enemies. Right, Nancy. Let's send them condoms and raise the minimum wage, or better yet, offer them womb-to-tomb healthcare. Maybe that will "solve the situation' that you don't seem to understand IS a war that we MUST win.
1) setting up democracy is a flawed idea, just like with helping the poor removing self-reliance destroys the germ of legitemacy which has been missing throughout much of history.
2) because of the botched strategy in Iraq up to this point there is nothing redeemable. We are doing nothign but breeding terrorists and increasing the donations (and recruits) from otherwise well meaning Muslim people in the rest of world to al qaeda. Basically you wanted your crusade and you have it. --the christians retreated without victory several times in the history of this crusade to the middle east, there is no reason why it should be expected to be different now.
3) Refocusing attention on other areas will be most effective if we cut the ever expanding military budget. One way to transfer money to the poor is to pay the widows of soldiers, another way is to give welfare benefits to people who have somehow failed to find a job. I am not sure that one strategy is morally superior to the other.
4) We need to recognize that this is a problem. It is a problem that we created. It is now a problem that we must solve. I don't understand what is misleading or confusing about this presentation. To turn a phrase like so much Bill O'Reilly, Most people know that going to Iraq was a mistake, now the only tool you have left to justify the killing there is that if we cut and run we are somehow making the situation worse than it was when it started. Most people understand that Iraq is more unstable now than it was under Saddam. Most people.... (I think "Most people" is Fox News slang for "what I would like to be true" These statements are merely hyperbole)
Anyhow, I believe that the election yesterday should show you that your worldview was riding on the tide of a post 9-11 world. Americans have become numb to those scare tactics and hate the war in Iraq. It is telling that Voters will take a Democratic Government with horrible economic policies, horrible social policies, and no moral orientation over a party which insists on fighting a crusade in the middle east. I find it telling that Americans voted to ban gay marriage (a reaction to the progressive element of our society) but are still voting in the party which would bring said moral ill to fruition faster.
I don't think it has fully sunk in just how horriblly the Republican party botched their chance to lead the nation. You must have a theory for why they became a symbol of everything wrong in politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI2F3iVxsUo
All kidding aside, though, as a registered Republican I think this change can be good for our country. The fact that Rumsfeld stepped down less than 24 hours after the election is a good start.
I guess you are asking me.
The winning strategy in Iraq is a free state that can secure its own borders, control terrorists and participate in the global economy.
Your irresponsible objection to the speed of progress and the (relatively) low casualty count betray a vapid ignorance of what is really going on there. See for yourself http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml
Since 911 we have not only successfully defended the US from every terrorist plot and attack, we have liberated 50 million oppressed Muslims with microscopic casualty rates, overwhelming tactical success, and sent the terrorists to flight (the ones we haven't killed yet).
The stupidest thing you said (with much to choose from) was that we (the USA) created this problem. That is reprehensible. We were attacked several times culminating in 911, we were already at war with Iraq at the time, the official policy of the United States for Iraq has been REGIME CHANGE since 1990 - that includes 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency. The whole world (including the toothless UN Security Council) condemned Saddam's regime, his expulsion of weapons inspectors, etc... Oh WHY do I bother?????
I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and I stand with my Iraqi comrades in arms against terror, false religion, and American political demigoguery. The democrats have NO PLAN for Iraq, and if they are able to govern at all, they will find that Presideny\t Bush's leadership in the war has been as good as it can be. Shame on every American carping against a war time president, taking away the tools to fight terror, tying his hands and whipping up demigogic condemnation against him as he tries to protect our nation.
I am personally sick of the vapid, distorted, uninformed, unpatriotic BS that democrats used to get elected. To them I say, "govern." You will find you have condemned yourselves.
Interesting, here I thought liberals stood for human rights.
"because of the botched strategy in Iraq up to this point there is nothing redeemable. We are doing nothign but breeding terrorists and increasing the donations (and recruits) from otherwise well meaning Muslim people in the rest of world to al qaeda."
Pure speculation, and not even credible, just like the stupid little NIE report, which supposedly went around to all the terrorist insurgents and asked them why they are killing our troops.
"another way is to give welfare benefits to people who have somehow failed to find a job."
People who want to work are working, the unemployment rate less than 4%. (and of course this is one of those things the Dems want to "change".)
"Most people know that going to Iraq was a mistake"
Correction: most people are unhappy with the way things are going in Iraq.
"Most people understand that Iraq is more unstable now than it was under Saddam."
They would be wrong, unless they think thousands of men, women, and children getting gassed and tortured to death is somehow "stable".
"I find it telling that Americans voted to ban gay marriage (a reaction to the progressive element of our society) but are still voting in the party which would bring said moral ill to fruition faster."
They didn't vote them in. Dems received the same amount of votes they usually do. Conservatives were cleaning house, and that is why you have temporary power. If anything, liberals should be crapping their pants because our little house cleaning is going to bring back the conservatism that repeatedly stomps liberal Dems at the ballot box, every time.
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - Copy to Clipboard
-- John F. Kennedy
You never understand that people that disagree with you are not democrats. I think that is very obsurd that you chategorically cannot comprehend someone that does not affiliate with a party.
Your statement of "false religion" betrays the real reason you support the war and what I can only assume is your quest to at least bully and at most kill anyone that does not subscribe to not only your political worldview but also your dogma.
It makes me sick to read your comment about "microscopic casualty rates" considering the death toll minimums are in the 10s of thousands and the maximums are in the hundreds. You have a far greater idea of what microscopic is, but that is maybe a result of your steady diet of blood lust on blogs and in daily practice as a soldier.
Wake up, shake off the hangover which has been republican party hegemony and learn to regroup. I would like to see the republican party become worthy of winning elections again. Remember the fact that we are exporting this kind of freedom all over the world and show a little class and respect for the system which you so nobelly claim to lay down your life for.
I do not believe in the minimum wage, notice what I compare with it. I know it is easier to respond to what you wanted me to say than to what I said, but you should try to think before you write.
I would love to address you points, but I don't honestly follow your critique. It could be my fault.
do you really want to use the phrase : "every time?"
You are a pathetic coward whgo acnnot even meet the modest requirements of blogging on Amy's website. You demonstrate that by your impish link to your phony name.
My name is out in the open: Sergeant First Class John W. Proctor, Iraqi Freedom veteran, and your empty postulations are the very blather you condemn my opinions as. I'm glad the low casulaty rates in Iraq make you sick. Maybe they'll make you sick enough to reseach the cost of liberation from dictators througout history. You clearly have not a clue as to the cost and VALUE of liberty as you esteem it cheap and readily available without giving acknowledgement that tough, hardened, courageous men give you that right by their willingness to take up arms in the cause of liberty. About that, you have no idea, no clue, no imagination, no credibility. You couldn't lace up the boots of my Soldiers on your best day.
Some people are consumers of freedom, others are producers.
The Saddam Fedayeen I faced in Iraq would probably make you pee your pants.
One more comment like that and I'll ban you.
Name calling and threats are tools which betray the thinking of the people that use them.
I wish you could just admit what should be abundantly clear now. I have been arguing with you for 3 or more years now over this same ground. All you can do is threaten to ban. What is the point of that? Why are you scared to have people tell you what they think, how they are critical of your point of view?
There are more ways to look at the world than to try and use the Col. Jessup line from a Few Good Men. (by the way that movie was an excellent use of irony).
I understand you are frustrated with the results of the election and I forgive you for all of your insults. I will pray that these burdens of hate will fall from both you and John's hearts.
"it takes alot of courage to stand up to the bully, more than it does to kill iraqis"
That has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with a personal attack on my husband.
You have no idea what it is to serve your country or to be in Iraq. We live it. Again,my patience is worn. One more comment like that and it's it.
Your husband started the attack:
"Your irresponsible objection..."
"The stupidest thing you said ..."
"I am personally sick of the vapid, distorted, uninformed, unpatriotic BS that democrats used to get elected. To them I say, 'govern.' You will find you have condemned yourselves." (did I mention that I wasn't a democrat, well correctly representing your opponent was never an option right?)
I don't think John has the moral high ground here. You clearly get to choose how you interpret it, but you need to realize that censoring is precisely the tactic which makes you suprised with a republican defeat. I have already forgiven you and yet you still threaten. You must find peace with this. Please find peace, no one is attacking you. I met your strong words with strong words. I am not proud of my emmotions getting the best of me, but there it is.
Continued insults transform your soul and do more harm to you than they do to me. I wish to relieve you of that burden.
"it takes alot of courage to stand up to the bully, more than it does to kill iraqis "
If you don't get it that's not my fault.
Relieve me.
I read your thoughts to understand your mind. I am human I will respond in kind, but why do you read? Why are you so intent on thinking that everyone owes you something?
"The winning strategy in Iraq is a free state that can secure its own borders, control terrorists and participate in the global economy."
This is NOT a strategy. These are GOALS, and they not exclusively shared by 'Republicans',ok?
Rumsfeld said yesterday, the war (I assume 'War on Terror') "is not well-known. It was not well-understood. It is complex for people to comprehend."
Specific to Iraq, he will be credited for a quick military victory, but more significantly, he will be remembered for not having a contingency plan, which as a self-avowed student of history, was absolutely critical given the history of Iraq. This is pure incompetence.
Now the situation is dire, has not made that area any safer (to the contrary as per CIA etc...), and has emboldened our real enemies.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is now Operation Prevent Civil War, and how the people who are sent to fight are not livid at the architect makes no sense to me.
Why did it take so long to relieve him from his post? Bad management.The fact that he is now, obviously means that there is no clear strategy, and hopes hang on the Iraq Study Group.
Iraq has been overtly simplified and sold in sound bites. Given the obvious complexity of the current situation, don't you think rocks would get overturned if the shoe was on the other foot? Isn't that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up the system?
You can't go around dumping Democrats and Republicans in simple categories- not all Democrats are Liberals, not all Republicans are conservatives.
Life simply isn't black and white, good and evil.
"The winning strategy in Iraq is a free state that can secure its own borders, control terrorists and participate in the global economy."
This is NOT a strategy. These are GOALS, and they not exclusively shared by 'Republicans',ok?
Rumsfeld said yesterday, the war (I assume 'War on Terror') "is not well-known. It was not well-understood. It is complex for people to comprehend."
Specific to Iraq, he will be credited for a quick military victory, but more significantly, he will be remembered for not having a contingency plan, which as a self-avowed student of history, was absolutely critical given the history of Iraq. This is pure incompetence.
Now the situation is dire, has not made that area any safer (to the contrary as per CIA etc...), and has emboldened our real enemies.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is now Operation Prevent Civil War, and how the people who are sent to fight are not livid at the architect makes no sense to me.
Why did it take so long to relieve him from his post? Bad management.The fact that he is now, obviously means that there is no clear strategy, and hopes hang on the Iraq Study Group.
Iraq has been overtly simplified and sold in sound bites. Given the obvious complexity of the current situation, don't you think rocks would get overturned if the shoe was on the other foot? Isn't that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up the system?
You can't go around dumping Democrats and Republicans in simple categories- not all Democrats are Liberals, not all Republicans are conservatives.
Life simply isn't black and white, good and evil.
Pure speculation, devoid of reality. Liberal RINOs lost us the election, not Iraq. If conservatives would have made it to the polls and voted regardless, you'd be weeping right now.
"I do not believe in the minimum wage, notice what I compare with it. I know it is easier to respond to what you wanted me to say than to what I said, but you should try to think before you write."
You should read comments before you respond to them. It will make you look smarter. Stryker brought up the minimum wage.
"I would love to address you points, but I don't honestly follow your critique. It could be my fault."
It certainly is.
"it takes alot of courage to stand up to the bully, more than it does to kill iraqis"
You're not standing up to a bully. You're hiding. Your childish little cheap shot at Johnny's profession is a true sign of jealous cowardice. Don't envy those with the guts to enlist because you feel inferior as a sniveling coward.
"John, if you are so right, why then must you demean to get your point across?"
This from the guy/girl/creature that openly insults the same profession that gives them a right to run their mouth and flap their gums in such retarded fashion.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom is now Operation Prevent Civil War, and how the people who are sent to fight are not livid at the architect makes no sense to me."
Because you're not there.
Irony:I hope Amy decides not to ban you. This isn’t just because I’m a magnanimous guy who doesn’t mind pathogen-riddled malodorous libs leaving snail-trails on his favorite blogs, but because every word out of your keyboard affirms everything I say in a way even my own unbridled eloquence and wit often cannot. You are but a parody of a caricature, and as I am certain you will not ever bother bringing facts to the table, I hope you continue to humiliate yourself in grand fashion.
In terms of that, they got what they deserved.
I only ban people who use profanity/obscenity, who stalk or troll me or who are past or repeat offenders.
It is descriptively inaccurate, but not really an insult. I would love to have a structured debate with you but you can't decide what issue you want to argue. I think you will find that the Iraq war loosing the 2006 elections is a bit stronger than speculation. You make no sense taking issue with that point.
On min wage: I am replying to your post above samwiched between two johnny posts from Nov. 8 -- you are just wrong and misrepresenting here.
<--->"another way is to give welfare benefits to people who have somehow failed to find a job."
People who want to work are working, the unemployment rate less than 4%. (and of course this is one of those things the Dems want to "change".)<--->
I assume you are not a liar, but just confussed.
I am in no way hiding -- you know as much about me as I know about you -- that is the nature of blogs. I don't give out my name because in the past I have known zealots to threaten people and bring in nonsalient vectors to the argument. I am sorry if you feel as if I was guilty of doing the same. But you already show that you can't keep out of valience issues such as name calling -- "liberals" as if that meant anything.
I simply disagree that Iraq and the soldiers who fight there do anything to protect my freedom. There is a weak case for protecting some sense of freedom in Iraq, but I am not sure you can put your finger on it (I know you think elections are freedom and purple fingers are proof) I don't buy it. Here at home all that has happened in the last 6 years is an errosion of civil rights. I don't see the soldiers doing anything to stop that.
If you are talking about the revolutionary war -- I am a direct decendant from Rawleigh Hammond who fought in same war and don't really appreciate you suggesting that his sacrifice is the same as an invasion into foreign territory.
Tim, you then proceed to do what you wrongly accused me of doing -- responding to someone else in your post without addressing them differently. The quote you pull is not mine. "Operation Prevent Civil War" is from BaldEagle's post.