Captain's Quarters -

So now the "debate" has come down to a senior U.S. Senator screaming bumper sticker sound bytes into a TV microphone at a senior U.S. military field commander? One is naturally inclined to ask the obvious question; "What's next?". But we all know what's next, don't we.

There is nothing left anymore to debate or discuss. Everyone has gathered their "facts" about them and sits in grim-faced certainty, pondering the uselessness of civility and awaiting the next blow. And somewhere down the road, not too long now, someone's not going to make it out of the room in one piece, or perhaps even alive.

Those of us over a certain age, are having this creepy feeling that we've been here before. The faces have changed, but the edgy feeling of something sulfurous in the air is there all the same. And "The Second Coming" keeps whispering in my brain like an old tune I can't stop humming.

That all of a sudden the donks now are convinced that the military leadership isn't worth listening to is no surprise. This is the inevitable result when a group of politicians has no principles or scruples, only tactical positions: they say one thing on day 1, and say the exact opposite on day 2, based solely on the immediate need of the day.

It's the same way that on day 1 they can call George Bush an idiot, or a loser, or a chimp, and the next day claim, "He tricked me!"

It's also how they end up so often standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the enemies of this country: their reflexive need to oppose Republicans no matter what has the unfortunate, yet entirely predictable, side-effect of making donkey talking points largely indistinguishable from al Qaeda's.

Bottom line, though, is that it's probably September-or-Bust for our military efforts. The donks have bet the whole enchilada on defeat in Iraq, and nothing is going to make them change their minds about that objective. And there are enough "squish" Republicans in the Senate who think that somehow they'll be not only forgiven but rewarded by the voters in 2008 for helping to lose a war, that at some point the donks will finally manage to ram defeat through.

If there's any "Plan B" for Iraq, it should be for Republicans to make damn sure that blame for the human and economic catastrophe that follows should lie squarely where it belongs: on the shoulders of the defeat-at-any-price donks.

“The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation,” Mr. Crocker said.

Ed, the whole point of the benchmarks is to have something more than vague feelings to base important decisions on. John McCain can blither on about how the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as there's a hope of victory, but since there's always hope that's no guide at all.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, . . . . . . .

" . . . . If there's any "Plan B" for Iraq, it should be for Republicans to make damn sure that blame for the human and economic catastrophe that follows should lie squarely where it belongs: on the shoulders of the defeat-at-any-price donks. . . . "

Finally, a neocon gives his "Plan B from Outer Space" . . . . . blame the Dems. Especially, Hillary. (Remember that Clinton got a BJ in the oval office.)

Forget that incompetent GWB created a complete klusterf*ck.

Forget that GWB has ignored his own generals private advice for the last 4 years.

Forget that GWB fired any general who dared disagreed with him.

Forget GWB's ever changing reasons for war in Iraq, from WMDs to getting rid of Saddam, to fighting imaginary Al Qaeda.

Forget scores of GWB's lies, and neocon mistakes, and gigantic screw-ups.

I say give GWB and his current general d'jour all the time they want. Up to, and including November 2008.

By that time, GWB will need his palace in South America to be his permanent home. Or, maybe he'll uproot to Dubai with Haliburton and Cheney.

The neocon Republican lies no longer work. (Hell, I don't even think that they believe their own talking points anymore.)

As each day passes, the GWB percent approval drops.

As each day passes, the percent of Americans against this fiasco increases.

As each day passes, the current Republican GWB syncophants fear the approaching election and their coming obscurity.

2 months. 6 months. 18 months. Yah. I can wait.

The conservative neocon Republicans have dug themselves a giant hole, and don't have enough sense to stop digging deeper.

One Republican Senator at least isn't buying Crocker's excuses about the benchmarks:

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the series of briefings he received at the Pentagon and privately in his office on Thursday did little to alleviate his concerns about the progress being made by the Iraqi government.

“The facts are pretty much in the public domain,” Mr. Warner said. “Our concerns are about their inability to come together and reconcile things.”

Damn right, gaius livius:

the democrat party owns the Pol Pot killing fields

the democrat party owns the Al Qaeda Iraqi killing fields

That's laughable, Donks.

Keep telling yourself that America will blame Bush for surrendering to Al Qaeda, when our generals are winning in Iraq.

All the Donks have to do is pull the funding plug...but they won't. They know Petraeus is winning. They know if they do that Iraq will become an AQ terror state overnight. They know millions of Iraqis will be killed...and they know the attacks on America will follow.

Most importanly (to the Donks) they know they'll be in the wilderness for a generation...or permanently so.

America will not tolerate losing this war, Donks.

" . . . America will not tolerate losing this war, Donks. . . . ."

You're 100% absolutely, positively correct.

That's why GWB's polls are now below Nixon's.

That's why 71% of country wants out of Iraq.

That's why "none of the above" beats all the current Republican candidates in the polls.

Yuppers, you're absolutely right.

The American people know whose war this is.

The American people know who screwed it up.

18 more months until the adults are finally in charge.

"...the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as there's a hope of victory, but since there's always hope that's no guide at all."

Well now, that's interesting Dude. Since you and your friends on the other side of the aisle have been screaming for months that there is no hope of victory for us in Iraq, and you now state with great confidence that there is always hope, have you changed your mind? Which is it? Is there hope or isn't there?

And now that the obligatory snark is attended to, I think there is a point to be made here that we should indeed be defining "success" in more concrete and objective terms because important decisions have to flow from them. If our objective is to create a nation-state capable of defending its sovereignty and making its own policy, then how do we measure that capacity? I would think that its ability to safeguard the security of its citizens might be good starting point. So how do we quantify that? Civilian body count? Terrorists arrested or killed? Perhaps a series of polls to determine the trend of some measure of how safe the average Iraqi "feels" on his own street corner? Some sense of objective and unequivocal measure is needed here because without it we will all just continue to amass our own sets of "facts" and beat each other over the head with our own "truth" to no good end.

Eventually of course, this is the job of political leadership, and quite plainly that leadership hasn't performed many of its functions very well at all. I don't believe for one minute that this war is unnecessary or optional, but I am very disappointed in the quality of its leadership in the political realm. No President in the last 40 years, with the possible exception of Reagan, has had a real understanding of how to lead America in a war, and the current one fits into that sad series with perfect symmetry.

Once again, the quality of the people we send into the breach is in marked contrast to the quality of leadership they serve. God bless them and those who support them, for without their example the picture would be black from border to border.

You seem to have forgetten that Bush fired the generals who favoured a new strategy, and replaced them with those who were agreeable to a more-of-the-same-in-perpetuity approach.

Well now, that's interesting Dude. Since you and your friends on the other side of the aisle have been screaming for months that there is no hope of victory for us in Iraq, and you now state with great confidence that there is always hope, have you changed your mind? Which is it? Is there hope or isn't there?

Well Lew, what are the odds of drawing to an inside straight? That's essentially what the U.S. is trying to in Iraq as it hopes to somehow reconcile a civil war there. One can huff and puff and bluff about it, but the fact remains that the odds in favor of doing it aren't so good. As Kenny Rogers once opined, you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run...

Bush should force the issue. There was an agreement made that the new plan would be given enough time to jell and that the newly appointed, top general could exercise his new strategy under the oversight by a new SecDef. What we have observed instead is the steady exhibition by the Democrats to cut-n-run and try to force the President to do their bidding because the Dem-led Congress will not cut funds in the open. Now, it would appear that even the facade has dropped and that the Democrats have already predetermined the outcome. Disingenuous to the last.

So, the Democrats, having breached any hint of an honest trial under new circumstances, should be ignored. Bush should proceed like the Democrats aren't there no matter what happens in September and listen only to his field generals and the grunts doing the heavy lifting. If they say leave, then leave. If they don't, don't. And then move on. Make the Democrats cut funds in a glorious display to be spread in three inch bold and wired around the world. Let history record exactly who will be responsible for the Killing Sands.

As many problems as I have with Bush, I would absolutely dare Congress to try ti impeach. Congress is not in position to run this war and control of such operations are out of their jurisdiction no matter how many slumber parties Reid holds. Let's see him cut the funds with troops in the field and a fledgling democracy dangling in the balance.

the democrat party owns the Al Qaeda Iraqi killing fields

You mean the ones created by Bush's unnecessary invasion? Yeah, the dems own those...

Dude,

Our estimation of the situation is different, our estimation of the power of our hand is different, our estimation of the odds is different and we are "all in" on this hand.

Let's see the "flop"!

" . . . Let history record exactly who will be responsible for the Killing Sands.. . . ."

You guys are the dorky kid in high school who lights a flaming bag of crap called Iraq and is so dumb, that he leaves it on his own neocon door step.

The American people are not laughing with you, . . . . . they're laughing at you.

Continuum,

*yawn*

Ed
For the first four years Bush listened to the Generals and then fired the ones that didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. About all we have left are a bunch who are political hacks more than they are generals - the ones that have been wrong as often as Bill Kristol. There are no generals left that have any more credibility than Bush himself and we are suppposed to take them seriously?

To the Iraqi People:

WE ABANDON YOU.

Sincerely, the democrat party, USA.

This may be Bush's war--with plenty of initial help from the dems---without which we probably would not be there--but the American people are not 6 yr olds. The facts are we are fighting a war in Iraq, it no longer matters whether we should have. If the Dems pull the funding they will own the aftermath.

First, the Captain's "listening to the generals" jibe begs rebuttal. As continuum and Dan point out, it was the Bush admin who stripped the phrase of any meaning by firing everyone from generals to civilian analysts who expressed reservations about the Iraq strategy. Omitting any mention of those circumstances borders on dishonest, even in a relatively heated ebate like this.

However, the criticism of the Dems is justified. Maybe it;s just the rehtoric, but the conclusive claims that the Iraq effort is DOA have taken on a pretty cavalier tone, considering that at bottom, nobody knows what may happen, and 98% of the people don't even have a grasp of all the balls in play that could in fact affect the outcome. I doubt anyone understands the burgeoning iraqi political process, including the Iraqi lawmakers and faction leaders themselves. So although pessimism is justified and optimism is suspect, it simply cannot be correct to declare the war over and us the losers, as Biden and many others seem to have done.

As to what we ought to do in Iraq, I remain pretty agnostic, but am gaining a distaste for the schadenfreude on parts of the left approaching my distaste for the unbridled militarism and exclusive claims on patriotism coming from parts of the right.

Thinking of odds, there's some bad news for President Bush coming out of Wisconsin today:

Bush's approval rating hits new low in state poll

" . . . . . Yawn . . . . . "

I'm not surprised.

You've had so much practice opening wide for Bush, that I figure that now it's just an autonomic reflex for you guys.

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with Joe Scarborough who stated this morning that Americans don't give a rat's ass whether there is genocide in Iraq after we leave. All Americans care about is whether or not kids from Kansas, Florida and Texas are dying.

Those of you Republicans counting on dumping this mess on the Dems are engaging in wishful thinking. I haven't noticed a whole hell of a lot of regret about Pol Pot and Cambodia in the last forty years. Right or wrong, Americans care about Americans. But I'm glad to see this new interest in international human rights on behalf of the right. I'm sure you are all writing to urge Bush to intervene in Darfur right now.

I should add that despite knowing next to nothing, I think we have more than a hail-mary chance of success. But clearly we have to stick it out to bolster our allies within the country and region. That's not comfortable and we will not be operating from as strong of a position as we "ought" to be in at this point. But our enemies are not strong either. The Iraqi population remains in play, and their resolve to create a working state depends on our own resolve to help them despite their imperfect behavior. Like it or not, they are our clients.

Wimpy moderate that I am, I am counting the days til 08 - not in hopes of a full withdrawal, but in anticipation of a steadfast and honest moderate administration that will see this thing through more deftly and with greater sensitivity to the politics involved.

But Teresa:

But strategically, Cambodia was a tempest in a teapot. A failed Iraq, with attendant genocide, is an obvious strategic menace. The two are very different, even in cold-blooded terms.

Even aside from the geopolitics, whatever results in Iraq will play on TV and internet 24/7. The up-side in saved U.S. lives may well be illusory. It's a possibility to real, at least, to dismiss out of hand.

RE: Teresa (July 20, 2007 10:28 AM)

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with Joe Scarborough who stated this morning that Americans don't give a rat's ass whether there is genocide in Iraq after we leave...

That may or may not be true inasmuch as the breaking of one's pencil lead causes some more consternation than statistical deaths of person's across the globe stacked like cordwood. The thing is that an expedited withdrawal and abandonment of those we promised to help has MUCH larger repercussions. How does one draw allies when a nation cannot follow through with such promises? In your every day relations, is your word worth anything? Well, in a dangerous world, it means something... and not in some conceptual, philosophical construct. Commitments matter.

Why should the American people care about a committment that was made on the basis of President Bush's lies about Iraq's alledged WMDs?

Don't complain about the lack of national will when such deceptions were used to begin with to make the case for war.

Biwah said

But strategically, Cambodia was a tempest in a teapot. A failed Iraq, with attendant genocide, is an obvious strategic menace. The two are very different, even in cold-blooded terms.

First let me agree that Iraq could be even worse , but it needs to be pointed out that for a very long time Cambodia was a no fire zone where the Viet Cong organized supply routes just inside the border there to enable their efforts in Nam and we saw them doing it but couldn't take them out.  If that exclusion zone had not existed we would have had a whole bunch fewer names on the wall of the Viet Nam Memorial in Washington DC today.

As the surge is having more success and during the same breath we are turning up more and more evidence of interference by Iran stoking the fires we are still punting the football.

We have much documentation they are behind the EFP IEDs and now we also have evidence that as the surge is kicking down the rat hole resistance of AQ in Iraq and the Sadr dudes all of a sudden we are picking up rocket launchers from Iran being used by the other side and also reports of shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons being used to take down our choppers a few months ago and the recent reports of two jet fighters taking off being shot down by similar means.

It seems that some outside forces are stepping up their number of chips they are willing to push into the poker pot here and they are playing against a guy who was probably playing Texas Holdem in his crib.

Here's a jawdropping statement from J. Kerry just yesterday on C-Span. Caller said she wants the US to pull out of Iraq, but was concerned about mass destruction similar to our pullout of Nam. Kerry's response was "there was no mass bloodletting." Cambodians were sent to "re-education" camps and that they're doing great today. You gotta hear it to believe it.

So this is how the left sleeps after fomenting mass destruction. They just deny it.

Video in Kerry's own words:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3274&comments=1

I don't know why this hasn't been getting the blogesphere play that I believe it deserves.

Ron Beasley says:

"For the first four years Bush listened to the Generals and then fired the ones that didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. About all we have left are a bunch who are political hacks more than they are generals.."

Does that include Petreaus? I thought he was lauded as a great choice from both sides of the aisle, wasn't he? Now that he is not telling the Dems what THEY want to hear, has he now been transformed in to a political hack?

Which specific generals (in the field) did Bush fire due to them telling him what he did not want to hear? Identify them please. Sources and links. Thanks.

And which specific generals are political hacks more than they are generals, and also provide sources/links supporting these assertions of their incompetence and lack of military expertise, knowledge, and credibilty, please.

Thank you.

You mean the very same "lies" perpetuated by the Democrats in Congress when ousting Hussein was politically desirable? That same Democratic machine that established regime change in Iraq before Bush took office?

Get some new bullet points, SF. Those have been done to death.

On the national will, I don't think there's a lack for finishing the war in Iraq to serve our best, longterm interests at all. In fact I'm confident the will is there to let the military do its job. It's the domestic political component that has everyone ticked off, and to prove that the public will isn't on the Democrat side, just look at Reid et al doing everything except the one thing they can do to end the war immediately... cut funding. Then if you're into polls, which I'm really not but it warrants mentioning, Congress ranks about half as well as Bush right now - a Democrat-led Congress that has just set an historic record for disapproval.

Americans aren't yet prepared to cut funding, abandon troops, or embrace loss, and the Democrats know it while some are working hard to stoke it. So, in the interim we get their dog and pony show which is today led by Biden's bark. Chihuahua's can be somewhat annoying, but ultimately they're harmless if their owners know the breed. Better he yip curtly than ask one of his 10-minute questions just to hear himself woof. I imagine the generals have more important things to do, so he did them a favor.

I actually do think there is the possibility of chaos when the US withdraws. I also think there is a stronger possibility that AQI will be wiped out by the Iraqis and that the Saudis & Iranians will be engaged in a proxy war for the next fifty years over Iraq. There are no easy answers in this debate.

My point is that Republicans somehow hoping that Americans will be horrified by the results of withdrawal and turn on the Dems is just wishful thinking. Ain't gonna happen. Most Americans just will not care as long as their sons, daughters and neighbors are not dying over there.

As far as allies "trusting our word" : look around. They are all gone from Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" is down to us and the Brits and the Brits are leaving. I don't hear the US saying, "Damn, we just can't trust those Brits anymore."

This was all one big clusterf**k. There are no easy answers. But no one can promise that things will look any better in another year or another ten years. Enough.

For any of you who are questioning my last post about the two fighters being shot down go to this post to read about it.

Well it looks like the most recent F-16 crash might not have anything to do with camel spiders, but something much more serious.

Tactical Report blog reports that there are indications the F-16 that crashed four days ago was shot down. This is a disturbing development if true, since the U.S. military had seemingly gotten its arms around the spate of crashes and shoot-downs of helicopters.

Teresa said

 As far as allies "trusting our word" : look around. They are all gone from Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" is down to us and the Brits and the Brits are leaving. I don't hear the US saying, "Damn, we just can't trust those Brits anymore."

Lady your factoid is just plain wrong.

We still have participants from over 20 allied countries in the coalition of forces.

There are an additional 15 or more countries contributing contractors without fighting forces that are supporting the effort there. 

In additon you say

 This was all one big clusterf**k. There are no easy answers. But no one can promise that things will look any better in another year or another ten years. Enough.

Thanks for your "I can't do it , it's too hard" endorsement.

We have your white flag being flown, at least some of us know the cost. 

You mean the very same "lies" perpetuated by the Democrats in Congress when ousting Hussein was politically desirable? That same Democratic machine that established regime change in Iraq before Bush took office?

It wasn't the Democrats who pulled the plug on the U.N. WMD inspections led by Hans Blix two days before the start of the Iraq War, it was President Bush, who didn't want to see his rush to war be deflated by the fact that the WMDs simply weren't there.

As to the national will, the report I cited earlier out of Wisconsin also noted that only 17% of polled respondents supported Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, and that 64% wanted the troops back home in six months. Democrats in Congress were willing to give Bush's "surge" a chance, but if the benchmarks aren't met by September, there will be no further passes forthcoming.

"18 more months until the adults are finally in charge."

This could be the single most idiotic entry ever left in the blogosphere. Now you know why you can't be taken seriously.

" . . . This could be the single most idiotic entry ever left in the blogosphere. Now you know why you can't be taken seriously . . . "

Now, now Kauiboy . . . .
You play nicely, or else I'll have to make you put away you GI Joe doll, and give you a time-out.

You really shouldn't interrupt when the grown-ups are talking.

The Democrat Party has been stabbing the US military in the back for decades and it's not going to stop now.

One of the reasons I left active duty in '97 was Clintoon's disrespect of the military and the dark prospect a mentally ill, corrupt and incompetent Al Gore might succeed him.

Traitor scum like Dick Durbin, Roberrt Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Harry Reid have called us Nazis and terrorists during this war and they "Support the troops that shoot their own officers" (according to the ANSWER demonstrations against America).

The Democrat Party has been defeated in Iraq, just as the Democrat Party was defeated in Vietnam and in the Civil War. If it was up to the Democrats, we would have cut and run from the first Gulf War, but we were too fast for them that time.

Still, when I came back from the first Gulf War, I heard from Democrat that we lost because "Saddam is still in power".

We'll he isn't now, Democrat trolls. Looks like you lost the fight for your boy Saddam, losers.

The Democrat Party owns losing because each and every member of the Party is, by definition, a worthless loser. Otherwise, why on earth would they be Democrats? It's just the kind of people they are . . .

RE: starfleet_dude (July 20, 2007 11:54 AM)

The only poll you need to look at is Reid's and Pelosi's internal polling that evidently says to them "do not cut funding for the troops." If that had traction, they'd have already done it regardless of what 800 people in Wisconsin say on a particular day to a particularly generic question.

Democrats in Congress were willing to give Bush's "surge" a chance, but if the benchmarks aren't met by September, there will be no further passes forthcoming.

They've neither been willing nor done any such thing. A "pass?" Hah. They've been doing everything possible to undermine the administration and the troops this entire time. The Democrat leadership is in a balancing act to appease the nutroots while trying to avoid agitating the bulk of the country... which leads us once again to the Democrat cowardice to defund the war. The instant they think they can, they will; but right now they don't have the support. Meanwhile, they remain committed to their race to make Bush withdraw for them. He'd be wise to continue his current course because a) there is success in Iraq and b) because his hand trumps the Dems. The Democrats do not want to handle this hot potato in '08 because their party is so weak on national defense, and any would-be Dem president sure doesn't want to handle the passed torch of a simmering Middle East because it would require a backbone it doesn't really have from a far-Left that doesn't want to stiffen it.

So let's cut to the chase. Why won't Reid/Pelosi defund the war this very instant since it is such a catastrophe and every wasted moment risks another American soldier's life? Where's their triumphal legislation that is legally binding and that doesn't concurrently try to weasel into another branch's powers via Unconstitutional micromanaging?

Daytrader -- Wake up. There are NOT fifteen countries providing active troops in Iraq. We are down to five:

United States: 250,000 invasion--158,000 current (6/07)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--5,500 current (5/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--638 current (2/07)
Denmark: 300 invasion--460 current (2/07)

Now, if you seriously think the 460 troops from Denmark -- no matter how gallant -- represent significant world support for this mission then you need to wake up.

"listening to the generals" is just the latest slogan. Look what listening to the generals got us up until now. Listening to the generals (and the WH) is what got us here (a badly planned occupation). If the previous leadership had to be replaced, what does that say about the judgment of our leadership? And for all the deserved respect Petreaus has, he's far from perfect and is on record as seriously misjudging the level of sectarian violence and domestic resistance to the occupation (that doesn't make him bad at all--he's got plenty of company there; he just isn't the perfect sage some paint him as). Now the WH wants to kick the can down the road again. They wanted us to wait for a commission report, then we get it (parts of which the WH ignored), then we are asked to wait for the surge, then the surge begins, then we are asked to not count it from when it begins but from when it is totally staffed, now we are asked to ignore the benchmarks that were put in place to measure the surge and the evaluation deadline originally proposed to get the surge approved. And yesterday they asked for November, after swearing by September. And this is just within the past year! The surge was supposed to buy the Iraqis time to gain political progress and resolve issues, but they have failed on all political benchmarks (so now, not surprisingly, we are now told that those were unreasonable benchmarks). And now of course, the NIE tells us that AQ (outside of Iraq) is resurrected and and as dangerous as ever. But keep kicking the can down the road in Iraq. Stay the course. Support the troops. Listen to the generals. Most of America has tired of the justification shell game (WMD, liberation, democracy, GWOT) and believe that whatever Chertoff is "feeling" in his gut, the threat is coming from AQ outside of Iraq. Americans are tired of the moving goalposts (and they are tired of being told they are traitors for questioning a President who got everything he asked for yet has clearly mismanaged the war--his war). Americans love their troops, but will they buy this latest stalling tactic from the WH? I don't think so, and as the election nears, "staying the course" will be increasingly risky for politicians.

Teresa, please reread daytrader's post. He did not write what you think he wrote. Participation can mean a wide spectrum of investment and personnel.

" . . . It's just the kind of people they are."

Now, NoDonkey, I realize from your posts that you are not a Democrat.

But, I'm wondering which branch of the neocon Republican party you belong to.

Is it, the Duke Cunningham, David Vitter group?

Or, is it the Mehlman, Foley, Lindsay Graham bunch?

In either case, instead of blogging why don't you guys just meet in one of those closets you all like, since both groups like to hide what their doing from voters and the FBI.

AD, cuttting funding for the war in Iraq is not the same thing as cutting funding for the troops. If the Pentagon would take contingency planning seriously enough to do something other than send insulting letters to U.S. Senators about the matter of planning for an orderly withdrawl from Iraq, they might get around to doing their real job instead of flaking for President Bush's miserable failure of a war. I guess there are always generals who are willing to put political favoritism ahead of duty, honor and country, unfortunately. Which is exactly what General Petraeus did by appearing on a right-wing radio program to talk up Bush's "surge" and General Odierno is doing by claiming it won't be until November (January, March, etc., etc.) that the effectiveness of the "surge" can be judged.

More excuses won't cut it with the American people anymore.

Of course, at the end of last year when the General's told Bush the surge was a bad idea...he got rid of them, and found ones who agreed w/him.

Good grief, the WingNuttery has a short memory...

Shame on you, Ed. The goal of the "benchmarks" was clear.

If we failed to meet them in 2008, we have failed in the war, it was hopeless, we had to evacuate Iraq in 2009.

If we met them in 2008, we have won in Iraq, hurrah, we could evacuate in 2009.

That's what Biden was getting at, the national "consensus" that we could evacuate in 2009 come hell or high water, and it was time for our Iraqi embassy to get with the program and stop delaying the "will of the people": total evacuation of Iraq before Billary became tagged with it.

"Now, NoDonkey, I realize from your posts that you are not a Democrat."

Congratulations. Your uncanny ability to fathom the obvious puts you in the 99th percentile of Democrats.

"But, I'm wondering which branch of the neocon Republican party you belong to."

I'm more of an anti-Democrat (Party) than I am a Republican. I disagree with the Republicans on a lot of issues. But I disagree with the Democrats about everything. As the Republicans are the best organized opposition to the Democrats, I side with them. If the Democrat Party imploded tomorrow (please god, please), I'd be an independent.

"In either case, instead of blogging why don't you guys just meet in one of those closets you all like, since both groups like to hide what their doing from voters and the FBI."

What and leave the Captain's comments pages to the trolls? Then how could we tell the difference between the Captain's comment page and the Daily Kos comments page? After all, since Kos bans anyone to the right of Stalin, it would be the sound of one troll clapping, wouldn't it?

SF, I'll ask again:

Why won't Reid/Pelosi defund the war this very instant? A clean bill, right now. They've already decided not to listen to the generals anymore, at least the ones most directly involved and active duty, so they have free reign to terminate any and all monies in spite of and particularly because of what those political, dishonorable, and traitorous hacks recommend. This is their golden opportunity.

Any links to a bill you can provide? Can you answer for them since I've seen none?

Anonymous Drivel wrote:

Teresa, please reread daytrader's post. He did not write what you think he wrote. Participation can mean a wide spectrum of investment and personnel.

____________

OK, but I don't think that technical support really counts for much when you are making claims about this enterprise having broad international support. The support our troops need are additional boots on the street and the rest of the world has decided that this is not worth fighting.

And, frankly, the Iraqi parliment's decision to take August off shows that they have decided its not worth fighting either.

The benchmark is the legislation, not sitting on their asses yelling at each other in Baghdad until they get it. If having them haggle informally out of the capital helps, what's the difference?

RE: Teresa (July 20, 2007 1:14 PM)

About the support, many nations do but will not commit resources since Uncle Sam is the rich contributor willing to take on the impossible when others won't. I wish our sacrifice weren't always needed, but it is our lot in history to provide it. Are we taken advantage of? Yes. However, and vitally, this is primarily our fight since we are the biggest target; consequently, our country gets saddled with the highest burden. On the upside we didn't have Chirac's France covering our backs, so Western participation can be a blessing and a curse.

At the same time, I'll not minimize the sacrifice of other nations either. I'll take an ally no matter how they come with few exceptions. Imagine if early on, China or Russia had supported us in the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq. This entire war may have been averted... and for what? A single vote on the Security Council. No money. No intel. No personnel. Just a vote. So "trivial" contributions can make the difference between war and peace and all of the concomitant blowback and carnage.

As far as the Iraqi parliament vacation, I'm not sure that's a fait accompli. Yes, that they have considered it is a definite concern and we should hold their feet to the fire to settle their disagreements while our personnel are fighting in theater. But I was under the impression that that plan had been dumped. Is it renewed?

Yes.... the vacation is back on. The parliament is taking the entire month of August off despite the fact that they are well aware that Petreaus is supposed to report on September 15th. (Tony Snow defended this at a press conference by stating that it was "really hot in Bagdad in August... up to 130 degrees." Well, guess what Tony, it is pretty damn hot when you are out on the street carrying 60 pounds of gear and getting shot at. Not so hot inside the airconditioned parliament building.

I think we need to realize the Iraqis have zero incentive for coming to any political reconciliation. Their forces are riddled with traitors and sectarian partisans. We have wasted blood and treasure on an unprecedented scale to give them a chance at democracy and they are sitting back and waiting till we leave so they can kill one another.

Enough.

Well, quite a comment thread. I like to visit these kinds of Captain post, because they attract troll swarms like ants to a picnic. Some of you probably have more experience with this phenomenon than I do, so maybe someplace there is an explanation of the dynamics behind it. I find it rather curious because to be a troll requires that you spend time with people you don't like. It's like - here are my own personal prejudices - going to a "50 Cent" concert, or relaxing on the shore of a polluted lake, or eating beetle larva for breakfast. Seemingly, not a pleasant way to spend a limited lifespan. Do they really think they are going to convince blog readers who generally share, or at least sympathize with, the Captain's philosophy? Given the contents of most of the "anti" comments, I think not.

I suggest then that instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, they profit from the employment of the techniques of critical thinking, such as using evidence skillfully and impartially, organizing thoughts and articulating them concisely and coherently; distinguishing between logically valid and invalid inferences; suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a decision; understanding the difference between reasoning and rationalizing; and, attempting to anticipate the probable consequences of alternative actions. This is not a comprehensive list, but I hope it will be useful the troll visitors. I also enjoy speculating about what these people would have done in earlier historical periods. I believe we can see parallels with the crowds in movies such as High Noon, The Crucible and the Ox Bow Incident.

Just sayin'.

Why won't Reid/Pelosi defund the war this very instant?

AD, they're willing to wait until September and see what progress, if any, has been made. Reid and Pelosi have been more than fair about giving Bush's "surge" a chance, based on what Bush originally said back in January, while Bush and other have already started to move the goalposts on judgment by saying it's really November or even next summer that the "surge" needs to have a chance to succeed.

As I said earlier, the U.S. is trying to draw to an inside straight in Iraq, hoping to bring the warring sides together, but civil wars are never settled by outsiders I'm afraid.

Jon Sal writes:

I find it rather curious because to be a troll requires that you spend time with people you don't like. It's like - here are my own personal prejudices - going to a "50 Cent" concert, or relaxing on the shore of a polluted lake, or eating beetle larva for breakfast.
____________________________

I'm guessing you are including me in the troll category. Why do I read Captain's Quarters or any other conservative web site and try to engage in discussion? I guess so that we can try to find some reasonable middle ground and so that my kids don't grow up in such a bitterly divided country.

BTW, I found common ground with you since I'm also not a fan of rap, pollution or eating beetle larvae. Maybe we can build from there?

Former New York City Mayor Ed "How am I doing?" Koch today bails on the U.S. occupation of Iraq:

"I’m bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war."

Who will be the last Republican to lose electoral office because of Bush's mistake? Think about it, Ed. No matter how badly the Democrats may be damaged over Iraq, you can be sure that the Republicans will be even more damaged politically the longer the GOP follows Bush's course.

The sooner President Bush is told by all sides that it's time to depart from Iraq, the better off the U.S. will be.

When even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says today that the September report to Congress on Iraq is important, it's time for President Bush and others to stop moving the goalposts about the matter.

Tom Shipley said

"You mean the ones created by Bush's unnecessary invasion? Yeah, the dems own those... "

Is that the same "unnecessary invasion" that Hillary and Jean-Claude Kerry voted in favor of?

We are screwed. We are also morally bankrupt. Millions died because we left 'nam too quickly and we will leave Iraq the same way. "We'll help you only if it makes us feel good about ourselves and none of us get hurt." After this we need to draw down the military to less than half of what it is because no one will want to deal with us knowing all the enemy has to do is wait us out and we will puss out and leave.

We in the Defense industry are now being advised that we need to plan for a CR (Continuing Resolution) until March or April. That means that the U.S. Congress will not have been able to pass appropriations and authorizations bills, which is one of their principal jobs, is routine, and comes around every year, until six months after it is due (the Federal fiscal year starts October 1). If they can't do a straightforward, well defined task like this on time (and they get the administration's budget in January) when they have control of both houses of Congress, what business do they have demanding that others perform much more complicated tasks in a fledgling government on a shorter timeline?

We in the Defense industry are now being advised that we need to plan for a CR (Continuing Resolution) until March or April. That means that the U.S. Congress will not have been able to do one of their principal jobs (which is routine, and comes around every year) for six months after it is due (the Federal fiscal year starts October 1). If they can't do a straightforward, well defined task like this on time (they get the proposed budget in January) when they have control of both houses of Congress, what business do they have demanding that others perform much more complicated tasks in a fledgling government on a shorter timeline?

"I guess so that we can try to find some reasonable middle ground and so that my kids don't grow up in such a bitterly divided country. "

Not interested. Fight the jihadist enemy, choose to prevent genocide of our allies, or be damned to you.

As starfleet_dude and the career Donks are only beginning to realize--hence their hysterical whining--they can win institutional control and still lose the country. Elections don't decide what's right. Elections just decide what the US govt is going to do. Do what's evil and demand we follow the flag into Hell and take what comes of it.

Well, Yell, who exactly would be our ally in Iraq? Is it the Sunnis or the Shites? Or the Kurds?

I wish you could point me to something you wrote during our intervention in Kosovo to prevent genocide that supported our actions there or is that only a recent concern of your's? If so, have you written your congressman urging intervention in Darfur or the Sudan? I'd love to see a copy of your letter.

Well, Yell, who exactly would be our ally in Iraq? Is it the Sunnis or the Shites? Or the Kurds?

I wish you could point me to something you wrote during our intervention in Kosovo to prevent genocide that supported our actions there or is that only a recent concern of yours? If so, have you written your congressman urging intervention in Darfur or the Sudan? I'd love to see a copy of your letter.

Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds who prefer legislative gridlock to outright warfare, are our allies in Iraq.

"Interventions" don't prevent genocides. War against the killing regime does. Back out of Kosovo after 9 years, or Cyprus after 40, and it will be as if we were never there. Rwanda was fortunate enough to be spared a "peacekeeping force" strong enough to keep the RPF in Uganda, and they liberated their homeland from machete justice.

Al Qaeda is there, and our moderate--NOT "unprecedented"--efforts there will continue to roll them back over the next couple of years. If we don't choose to throw 25 million people into slavery by a few thousand, because it wasn't as important as discretionary spending.

Ultimately it's not up to us whether we have peace.

Judging from the unusually high level of Friday chatter by our "usual gang of trolls," they must have all simultaneously asked for a day off from work (assuming, of course, they're gainfully employed in the first place)

Something tells me they've all joined the same support group.

starfleet_dude said:

"Former New York City Mayor Ed "How am I doing?" Koch today bails on the U.S. occupation of Iraq:

"I’m bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war."

1. Can you provide a link to Ed's bailing story? I couldn't find it doing a Google News search.

2. If you're going to hitch your wagon to his star and accept everything Ed Koch says as gospel truth, read this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/its_only_fair_to_commute_libby.html

the day of reckoning is near you willfully blind Ostriches!

http://www.alternet.org/story/57286/

oh ya, please keep it up - by 2009 the GOP will be utterly gone! ;-).

"My point is that Republicans somehow hoping that Americans will be horrified by the results of withdrawal and turn on the Dems is just wishful thinking. Ain't gonna happen. Most Americans just will not care as long as their sons, daughters and neighbors are not dying over there."

Damn straight! and the Pug Pu$$**s refuse to demand for the draft.

THE DRAFT - the only thing that would make Americans unite and win in Iraqnam.

Of course that might have worked in 2002 - but not now, too late. You Hypocritical armchair assh&les happy to wage war from your lazyassboy chair and send other kids to do the dying for you.....................like a fucking football game. you pusses make me sick

you deserve your defeat - looking forward to it hypocrites.

gabbo said:

"the day of reckoning is near you willfully blind Ostriches!"

Actually, if the previous (Democrat) Administration had kept their heads above the ground, al Qaeda would have never been emboldened to try bombing US Embassies, or attacking the USS Cole, or some other things....

FYI, Gabby, do a Google search on "Gabbo" to see why I changed your name. The name was first applied to a ventriloquist dummy in a 1929 musical movie, and the character was later resurrected by Mike Scully and the "Simpsons" crew in "Krusty Gets Kancelled".

And since you're definitely having your strings pulled by someone else, the name fits :-)

oh ya - brain dead goobers:

Adjective - Noun

DemocratIC Party

hypocritical tards - there is no such thing as "democrat party" unless you are an illiteral fool.

which all of you who have posted a Noun in front of another Noun in order to describe the second Noun..........are.

boy don't you just love that Republic Party?

or is Repug better?

"Thanks for your "I can't do it , it's too hard" endorsement.

We have your white flag being flown, at least some of us know the cost."

..................................

its called REALISM tard.

don't tell me - the South will Rise again right?

christ sure alot of fools on this site. folks that think with their emotions instead of reason.

oh same thing as a fool - I'm repeating myself.

since we cannot win - the cost will be higher with every day we stay.

fool. grow up

delusional No Donkey sayeth:

"Still, when I came back from the first Gulf War, I heard from Democrat that we lost because "Saddam is still in power".

Well - I rember 1991. I was NOT a Reichbuglicon, but a Liberal Libertarian - as I am today. I fully support the Gulf War - both its cause, its means, and its conclusion.

I fully understood that the stated Manadate was to uphold theUN resolutions - that being get out of Kuweit. Bush SR was one of the BEST OF THE BEST in forgein policy. He understood that International LAW - as in the UN - was important!! (unlike his retarded Son). To have moved into Iraq proper and taken out Saddam in the Gulf War would have exposed us as total hypocrites and not valuing interantional LAW (UN resolutions).

the mission was accomplished with Saddam OUT of the lands he illegally invaded.

AS for your DELUSIONS about the dems opposed to not taking out Saddam in 91. Well No Donkey you are either WRONG - or a lier - the folks who were pissed at Bush SR were the REICHBUGS, they WANTED HIM TO GO TAKE SADDAM OUT IN 91.

I remember the critics of the conclusion of that war - ALL was from the Riechwing Party. - YOUR PARTY.

Drivel sayeth - and reviseth history below:

"Imagine if early on, China or Russia had supported us in the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq. This entire war may have been averted...

WYF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

BOY KING was the one who CANCELLED the Security Council meeting!!!!!!!!!! because HE WANTED WAR AND CHINA AND RUSSIA REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE IT in the upcoming SC meeting!!!

along with Germany, Mexico, France and Chile!!

you people are truely in an alternate world - jesus! feel like I'm reading Pravada for something when I troll over this blog.

Captain - inform you posters about historical facts before they make fools of themselves.

or is this Pravada?

"We are screwed. We are also morally bankrupt. Millions died because we left 'nam too quickly and we will leave Iraq the same way. "We'll help you only if it makes us feel good about ourselves and none of us get hurt." After this we need to draw down the military to less than half of what it is because no one will want to deal with us knowing all the enemy has to do is wait us out and we will puss out and leave.
Posted by: Richard Cook at July 20, 2007 3:43 PM"

PURE WISDOM!! I concur totally.

THE DIFFERENCE BEING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some "wars" are not worth STARTING and their CAUSES are UNFORTHY from DAY ONE.

or as Obama says "I'm against supoprting dumb wars"

...

SO YES CERTAINLY in a war with a JUST CAUSE and a REAL THREAT (like ww2) one should as a Nation fight to the upmost in all ways!!!

Iraqnam is just a dumb fukcing war with no cause worth even ONE man dying for.

you Pugs need a HUGE dose of individual thought to determine which war is just and which is bullshit based upon lies - playing a dumbass robot and simply supporting any and all wars der boy leader tells you will NO LONGER FLOAT.

RE: Teresa (July 20, 2007 2:02 PM)

Yes.... the vacation is back on. The parliament is taking the entire month of August off despite the fact that they are well aware that Petreaus is supposed to report on September 15th. (Tony Snow defended this at a press conference by stating that it was "really hot in Bagdad in August... up to 130 degrees..."

Yes, Snow made this comment on 7/13 but followed up with the following on a subsequent briefing:

Office of the Press Secretary
July 16, 2007
Press Briefing by Tony Snow

From the Q&A portion:

Q Did the President get any new assurances that the Iraqi parliament will not be going on vacation in August?

MR. SNOW: There was no discussion. What the President talked about was the importance of accomplishments.

Q Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, told Newsweek, in the new issue, that "the fact that the Iraqi politicians feel free to be going on vacation in August, while our men and women are out there dying doesn't make me think we're going to see any more progress by September." What do you say to that?

MR. SNOW: Well, what I say is we're going to have to see what progress we get.

So, that vacation may still not be in stone and certainly is being reconsidered in view of political circumstances. I'm almost certain that the vacation will be curtailed or abandoned. Perhaps you have access to a better itinerary.

A bit more about the summer heat though. If this timetable weren't so fixed, then the soldiers might not have to burn quite so quickly on all ends to meet an artificial deadline that the Democrats insist is an inflexible decision day, nevermind that decision day came months ago and that what we are witnessing is political CYA posturing regardless of any presence or absence of surge and subsequent consequence. As it stands Iraqi parliament is working 6 days a week to settle differences in a conflicted state. Stabilizing but still conflicted. Perhaps some Congresscritters could take a cue from the Iraqi parliamentarian workload considering the pontificators' Christmas recess, vacations, weekend sojourns, and wasteful slumber parties in a nation awash in peace and freedom with a long history of democratic heritage. I'm not really convinced that our domestic representatives have much sympathy from me on their performance particularly considering what is at stake for us too. Iraqis aren't the only ones with something significant and long lasting to lose.

RE: starfleet_dude (July 20, 2007 2:18 PM)

AD, they're willing to wait until September and see what progress, if any, has been made. Reid and Pelosi have been more than fair about giving Bush's "surge" a chance...

C'mon, SF. How can you conclude that? Reid's Senate just got through trying to force legislation directing troops to a drawdown. Also, Congress tried to politicize continued war funding during this very session but caved because the public was against their POV. Meanwhile, before Petraeus could even get in theater months ago, the Democrats were calling the new strategy, the very strategy they appointed him unanimously to implement, a failure. You are either wrong on this issue or dishonest. It's been weeks of anti-administration rhetoric and maneuvering. Maybe you noticed an occasional Democrat say the word "failure" a few times in anticipation of their unbiased view of the coming report. Perhaps not.

RE: gaffo at July 20, 2007 9:10 PM

Sorry about your issues with the keyboard sticking. I suggest NewEgg.com for a replacement. As to your considered responses, I suggest you make an appointment with your neurosurgeon. The lobotomy seems not to have taken.

There were previous votes in the UNSC leading up to the penultimate that could have convinced Saddam that he should be more open and forthcoming with those with whom he signed a treaty ceasing previous hostilities. Their handsitting, not to mention some participants' criminal association with Saddam's Oil-For-Food sham, provided the cover Saddam needed to remain antagonistic and belligerent. Subsequently, that reinforced the view that WMDs were either present or a WMD program remained in a nascent state ready for quiet reconstitution when sanctions were lifted, an increasingly likely trend that had evolved due to OFF violations and outsider desires to develop Iraq's untapped oil fields.

But let's just selectively recall the history we like, eh? Perhaps a bolus of neurotransmitter will bridge your expanded synapses while better regulating your typing. But don't OD on it. That lobotomy needs time to heal.

Q Did the President get any new assurances that the Iraqi parliament will not be going on vacation in August?

MR. SNOW: There was no discussion.

................

and you say that it is "still in the air"?

what part of NO DISCUSSION - MEANING BUSH DID NOT PROTEST THE VACATION PLANS - did you not quite get??????????????

christ you folks are THICK-brained.

Jesus!

....

alot like what "is" "is I guess.

pathetic.

it is CLEAR that the Vaction is ON!

Ostrich.

Ummmm, StarFleet- Ed Koch is a Democrat

But like most intelligent/honest Democrats, he voted for Bush, and supported the war (until now, apparently)

"MR. SNOW: Well, what I say is we're going to have to see what progress we get."

It's not the US Senate. It's a parliament. Legislation passes when enough faction bosses get on board to deliver a majority. Horsetrading to a majority doesn't require buying every vote individually; either they salve enough chiefs or they split a faction--and the latter process runs smoother when they're not actually in session and the chiefs can't do a daily roll call.
What Snow is saying is that at the end of their "vacation" they may deliver a swift passage of a number of laws, meaning "progress". That's been the usual method of Iraqi assemblies in this war, it's Hell No until they say Yes.

At this point in time, given with what we've witnessed of our Democrat's/Left and not knowing what message Pelosi may have(or likely) back-channeled to Tehran while in Damascus, I honestly believe it would behoove us to begin preparing for the worst of consequences of a precipitious pull-out both here at home & also abroad.

If there's one task our Democrat's/Left excel, it's turning any situation - good, bad, even undetermined - into an unmitigated disaster.

The reality of Iraq:

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.

Pentagon officials were not immediately available to comment on the statistics.

I propose we give Gen. Petraus 3 years, not 2 he is predicting, to see out his plan.

Let's start the date when he said in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004

“Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

SD, surely you did not think the surge was going to drive Al Qaeda from Iraqi neighborhoods because we'd send increasing numbers of troops onto their turf, driving down housing values and raising rents, forcing a "terrorist flight" out of the cities?

Surely, you realized there was going to be some shooting involved?

We are not sending combat troops to Iraq to avoid more violence.

We are sending combat troops to Iraq to wreak violence.

Oohhh,

A leftwingnut, er, commenter known as starfleet_dude regails us with a link to a Reuters story, as if the propaganda, er, news story had any credibility.

Posted by: JohnSal at July 20, 2007 2:05 PM

Nicely written John....

Having just read this entire thread, I must ask the following question: What exactly did gaffo add to this thread? The other trolls seemed to make an effort to debate without the "mud in the eye" approach; gaffo jumps in and starts throwing the hatred in every direction, offering not one single legitimate argument; a complete waste of space the gaffo is... I would have to question the gaffo's motive for showing up here at CQ...

The Democrat controlled Congress has an approval rating of around 16%. If the majority of Americans wanted to "run away from the fight" like a bunch of frightened wimps, then Congress would certainly have much higher approval ratings. Truth is, Democrats are extremely gifted at fighting paper fights; just like the kid who gets the tempers stirred up and then watches the fight from behind the tree. The Democrats refusal to engage in debate on Fox News recently is a good example of the cowardice that controls these critters; when faced with the possibility of having to answer questions that are not within their control, they ran away like the frightened wimps they are. Democrats are really stuck on the Iraq issue; their base is full of cowards that want "cut & run", but the rest of the country wants victory and protection of the American homeland & the American way of life. How do they go in front of the camera's and look tough, while pleasing their whiny "cup is half empty" base? They talk tough; they look angry; they got the "deadly serious" shrill down pretty good; problem is that huge tail stuck between their legs, the tail of a scared critter running from a tough assignment. The refusal to debate on Fox News can not be explained away; that was a cowardice statement made to the entire nation "we refuse to debate in an environment that we don't control"...

I'm dreaming of a day, a day in American history where Lawyers no longer ruled our country; a day when Lawyers were held responsible for the damage they have brought upon our country; a day when a "new breed" of politician was given a chance to represent the people. I realize that there are thousands of "good and decent" lawyers working hard to represent their trade with dignity and honor; however, very few of those found their way to DC......