September 27, 2007

How Petraeus Moved The Debate, Literally

How far has General David Petraeus moved the debate on Iraq? His testimony on the surge, and the effects of the surge itself, has made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat. In fact, at last night's debate, the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination couldn't even commit to a withdrawal -- by 2013:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Hillary had already made the comment before the debate that she couldn't commit to pulling out all combat troops by the end of her first term. For Hillary, who has tried to cast herself as a realist in foreign policy, that position makes some sense. For netroots favorites Barack Obama and John Edwards, though, it sounds like political suicide. The anti-war Left will not easily forgive them for those answers.

Those responses, though, come from the shift that has occurred over the last two months in public perception of the war. Americans don't like to lose wars, and given the successes that Petraeus has generated, more Americans see an opportunity to persevere in Iraq. Leading Democrats realize now that running as the party of defeat when we continue to gain ground may sound good in the primaries, but will be disastrous in the general election.

That's why the frontrunners at last night's Democratic debate couldn't promise an end to combat deployments in Iraq for another five and a half years, a year longer than we've had troops in Iraq up to this point. Petraeus moved the playing field for the Democrats, and last night saw the first attempt to catch up to reality. The rest of the Democrats may have trouble keeping pace.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Petraeus Moved The Debate, Literally:

» Who Won Last Night's Debate? from RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage
Dueling Dems: [Read More]

» General Petraeus Helped to Pave the Way to Victory in Iraq from QT Monster's Place
Last night in the yet another, interminiable Democrat debate, the Democrat candidates wouldn't commit to a withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. Because Petraeus and The Surge are improving things on the ground in Iraq, and the American people want to keep the... [Read More]

» The Only Thing That Moved from Comments From Left Field
You know, the pro war crowd can be very convincing.  Sometimes I find myself even starting to waver a little after being subjected to a non stop litany of “We’re winning now, honest”, and “The American People want VICTORY!!!!!!... [Read More]

» Democrats Retreating on Iraq Withdrawal from Outside The Beltway | OTB
Ed Morrissey thinks the recent testimony by General David Petraeus has “made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat. In fact, at last night’s debate, the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination coul... [Read More]

Comments (90)

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 4:46 AM

Hypocrits and cowards to the last.

From: "Bush lied" (even though he used Clinton's intell)

To: "Pull out before November!" (even though I wouldn't pull out if I were Pres)

Now one of the only candidates who could make a consistent argument to pull out (because he didn’t vote for the war) now says he wouldn’t pull out?

These people are scum. They connive and scheme playing politics with American soldiers/marines' lives at stake. Most of the Dhimmis enabled the war in the first all they can do is play games with BRAVE warriors' lives at steak. Shipmates, I tell you in this day and age, we don't have enough of these OUTSTANDING warriors to be wasting them for nothing. Why aren't your Republicans playing hardball with the cowardly, disgusting Dhimmis?

Posted by Steve J. | September 27, 2007 5:27 AM

SEN. WARNER:...Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy,do you feel that that is making America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

SEN. WARNER: Does that make America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually.

Posted by Steve J. | September 27, 2007 5:29 AM

From: "Bush lied" (even though he used Clinton's intell)

Powell: But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.

Meet the Press

NBC News
Updated: 10:08 a.m. MT May 16, 2004

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 27, 2007 5:51 AM

Were there not Dhimmis on the intel oversight committees? Your dim whit Dhimmis had access to ALL the intell...why did they vote for the war?

Were they lazy, stupid / incompetent or just conniving?

Posted by USMC Ken | September 27, 2007 5:56 AM

So what is your point Steve J? That Gen Petraeous stayed in his lane to talk about what effect his strategy will have in Iraq without speculating on the effect outside his theater? That Powell has pointed out a common problem with intelligence from closed societies?

Live in the now, my friend. Your candidates are running away from the positions you and would like them to adopt because they see the Bush/Patraeus stategy as being the right one. Maybe you should ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come and run for president. He would probably toe your line pretty well.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 27, 2007 6:00 AM


How long have we understood Democrat disingenuity on the Iraq/Afghanistan question? Years. It gets more obvious every day... as if that were possible.

The Democrats put on an artificial show of support in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 for political cover, but they've been undermining the entire Middle Eastern/anti-terror doctrine, the very doctrine Clinton began with Saddam's regime change, from day one. Their distaste from Gore's loss in '00 has been a reflux they cannot rinse out, and their allegiance to politics over country has made them collectively irrational. Worse, they won't even use the one Constitutional tool they have to carry out the "mandate" they claim to own because... wait for it... it would be politically damaging.

Overall, they just make me nauseous. And angry.

Posted by Al Maviva | September 27, 2007 6:05 AM

D@mn that fiendish KKKarl Rove, forcing the Democrats to pass a law requiring a report from the Executive Branch on the Iraq War's status, and forcing them to say they wouldn't have Bush testifying so close to 9/11, that Petraeus shold come and deliver his own report without White House interference.

I don't think you'll ever find clearer evidence that the entire Democratic Party is completely controlled by KKKarl Rove, who not only controls the legislative agenda, but makes Dem politicians' mouths move, and stupid things come out.

D@mn you, KKKarl Rove! D@mn you!

Posted by Jan | September 27, 2007 6:15 AM

I really don't think Petraeus moved the debate at all. The President has his way because Republicans still stand with him. So be it.
We'll see how that works out for the Republican Party next November.

In answer to this:
"Your dim whit Dhimmis had access to ALL the intell...why did they vote for the war?"

We repeat:
Bush lied

Your answer:
"Bush lied" (even though he used Clinton's intell)

We remind you of facts:
Powell: "But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

And I'll remind you of this:
On August 26, 2002, in the buildup to the invasion, Mr. Cheney promised the world that he knew where the wmd's were located in Iraq.

If you don't mind the SecState or the Vice President of the United States blowing smoke up your ass, I guess it's not as painful to support these failed policies in Iraq.

Some of us don't appreciate bullshit from our gov't before sending troops into unnecessary combat situations.

In addition, the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003, and we "PREVAILED."
"Prevailed" means "won" right? Did I miss the ticker-tape parade for the heroes???

I had a shipmate killed aboard the USS Cole. I have my gun pointed at ONE enemy.
Clinton told Bush to go after Osama Bin Laden.

In response, Bush pulled out a map of Iraq.

This is The Worst Commander in Chief EVER, and how people still support him? I just don't get it.

Do we now need to stay in Iraq because it's an utter flustercluck? Yes.
But to give this adminstration a single kudo for what they've done to/with/ and not for our troops is...
Seriously, WTF are you thinking?

Posted by dhunter | September 27, 2007 6:19 AM

We can come on here and bitch about the traitorous Dems all we want but the question remains were are the Republicans with at least as many balls as they are born with?

Would that at least one who wants to be the next president point out the traitors for what and who they are.

That one will get my vote and my dollars. Until then the change stays in my pocket with my vote.

Where is the RNC? Busy trying to get Amnesty bills snuck through the congress when no one is looking? I'm tired of the new tone. Fight fire with a bigger fire. Works for our brave troops who are putting their lives on the line for what kind of country?

Posted by jerry | September 27, 2007 6:49 AM

Steve J.

The "Are we Safer" question is a bunch of nonsense. Safer then what? Safer then when?

Are we safer then we thought we were on September 10, 2001. Of course not. We thought we were immune from Islamic terrorism on that date despite the first WTC bombing.

Are we safer then we were on September 12, 2001. Of course we are. I am certain that we were still safer on September 11, 2004.

Are we safer now? It's hard to say. The country has grown tired of thinking about terrorism especially since we haven't had any. So by that measure and from what we know of AQ plans in the wake of 9-11 we are safer.

However, we have moved backwards from 2004. The NYT and other media outlets have compromised vital surveillance programs. Federal Judges have usurped the President's constitutional war making prerogatives. The Democrats and their lackeys in the MSM and leftwing Blogosphere have encouraged AQ by their unceasing undermining of the President.

So if we are back to September 10, 2001 don't blame Gen Petraeus or the Bush Administration. Blame those fools who ask the question "are we safer now."

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 27, 2007 6:59 AM

"Cherry picking"

It's one of the favorite terms opponents of the war point to re pre-war intel on Iraq. It's also the favorite tactic of those very same people when it comes to quotes. For example, the "I dunno" comment by Gen Petraeus was later clarified by his saying, yes we are safer, but in the interest of pushing a partisan agenda, an opponent of the war will ignore the complete truth, cherry pick/half quote a comment, and present it as though it were real. Hypocritically, this is the exact same thing President Bush is accused of doing (though 9 independent, bi-partisan, and international investigations have found that pre-war intel was bad intel...not lied or fictional intel). If President Bush is a liar for presenting half truths (which he did not), then those who DO deliberately present half truths, half quotes, or distort facts are not only absolute hypocrites, but liars in the same vein that they accuse of President Bush.

Why do it? Bush hate. Pure and simple. More complex reasoning? Because opponents of the war can't face the fact that they were completely PAWNED by the Democratic Party. Used. Sucked of moola, time, and energy to get votes under the veil of "new direction in Iraq" (ie, retreat), and those same professionally trained liars, lawyer-politicians played them. They got elected, then blew off the effort to really get US forces out of Iraq.

If a person voted for a Democrat last fall with the idea that Democrats would provide a "New Direction" or even end the war...that person got PAWNED, and the Democratic Party got OWNED by MoveOn, ANSWER, CODEPINK, and every other nutjob that thinks there can still be a peaceful, politically driven withdrawal from Iraq. Open a calender...there's no more time.

It's as useful to protest war today as it is to protest the invasion. Both are done deals. Iraq was invaded (learn to deal with history). There's no more time to get a withdrawal (look at the calender...politicians ain't gonna do it during primaries, or this close to an election).

Shoulda stepped up and protested the dictator and the terrorists not the liberators.

Posted by MarkJ | September 27, 2007 7:15 AM

Dear SteveJ,

I suspect Hillary!(TM) has at last recognized that if, or when, "The Clinton Restoration" takes place in January 2009, there will be two very large swords hanging directly above her desk chair in the Oval Orifice (aka's "Bubba's Rumpus Room").

And both of these swords will be shaped like the Twin Towers.

Sorry pal, but if I were a Vegas odds-maker I'd be willing to place a hefty bet on the probability that the foreign policy of Hillary!(TM) won't look fundamentally different that Chimpy McHalliburton's for a whole host of practical and cynical reasons. Perhaps the most important of these are:

a) Hillary!(TM) can't afford to see an American defeat and retreat in Iraq.

b) Hillary!(TM) can't afford to deal with another major terrorist attack.

Wanna know why? Because the Democrats have already said and done too much that's on the record, and they're now the "Bigger! Better! Faster! More! Party." If the "Hillster" and her sycophants don't deliver the goods, or preside over a major foreign policy disaster, the voting public will never forgive them. She's got two years to make sure nothing bad happens; otherwise, come the 2010 congressional elections, the Donks will figuratively end up in a car trunk out in the weeds.

SteveJ, I trust you'll think about the above each morning as you drink your cooperative-grown, organic "fair trade" coffee.

Posted by NoDonkey | September 27, 2007 7:17 AM

This is what happens when you allow a bunch of basement bound, closet case, nutroot losers to formulate what passes for your "political strategy".

Democrats thought they could knife the troops in the back and win politically.

Traitor Democrat pols are now running under the oven like the crum munching cockroaches they are.

Democrats may still be smoking dope, staring at lava lamps and playing their Jefferson Airplan albums, but this ain't 1967.

It's a new day and one that will hopefully lead to the last days of absolutely worthless Democrat Party scum.

Posted by David | September 27, 2007 7:23 AM

"Do we now need to stay in Iraq because it's an utter flustercluck? Yes."

This logic escapes me. It was easy to predict that we would win this WAR. That is what our vastly superior military was designed for.
We are not at war now. We are occupying a country with a completely alien and hostile culture. Is this tribal based society ready for democracy?
Are you willing to bet the lives of your neighbors that they are?
The constitution of the U.S. should be our guide, but sadly it has been forgotten for many years.
If Osama bin Laden attacked us for our freedoms, then it is clear he has won many of them already, as our military strength is squandered here.
I could see using the troops as military police ON OUR OWN borders while we build the fence. We need to prepare to transition from sole superpower to a less preeminent position, or we will hit the wall hard.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 27, 2007 7:24 AM

Petraeus declined to answer a political question so Americans will need to answer it for themselves.

Petraeus has said al Qaeda is being attrited in Iraq at a fearsome rate. The MSM of course does not report that statement. Iraqis -both Shiites and Sunnis- are fighting al Qaeda and have sworn on the Koran to rid Iraq of al Qaeda. Iraqis are working alongside Americans to rid their country of terrorists.

As a result of their insane tactics of killing innocents in an unsuccessful attempt to start a civil war, al Qaeda's reputation is now in the toilet-in Iraq and throughout the middle east. They have been decimated and they are finding that those reports in the American media of there being an unlimited supply of volunteers willing to blow themselves up in order to kill fellow Muslims aren't quite true.

While the Iraqi government seems incompetent (like the American Congress) there has been no attempted coup. Iraqi politicians are trying to solve their problems by talking- or walking out of talks. Iraq is a failure only if you expected a Jeffersonian democracy ovenight.(If only America had a Jefferson today.)

Iraq will not now have the nuclear weapons which Saddam would have returned to developing the moment sanctions ended.(Read McGrory and Bhattia's "Saddam's Bomb" to enlighten yourself as to the extent he had gone to develop nuclear weapons). WTC bomber Yasin is no longer on Saddam's payroll and Iraq is no longer harbouring, training or financing terrorists.
Saddam's insane sons will not inherit Iraq's presidency.

The life of every American soldier is precious but all of this has accomplished at less loss of life than occurred annually under Clinton (in peacetime).

My concern today is not the strength of America's enemies but the weakness of America. America is clearly not as safe as it could be if it were united. One of two American political parties voted for a war and then decided to politicize it for partisan political advantage.

A clear signal has been sent to America's enemies that America is divided and vulnerable. Bush has had to fight two wars at once. The foreign war is going much better than the domestic war.

America is lucky to have an all volunteer military. These volunteers have risked their lives to bring peace to a far away land. Their efforts have been opposed and denigrated throughout.

This military has been sent on a difficult mission only to see it undermined for partisan political purposes. How much longer America will have such a marvellous military is an open question.

Military progress in Iraq is now undeniable but a large percentage of Americans want as president an ethically challenged politician who has called the author of that progress (the commander in the field) a liar. This would -be president who refuses to criticize those who call the General a betrayer. This is what I would call a clusterf@#k.

Posted by jay | September 27, 2007 7:26 AM

I would say that the debate moved in part due to the General's report and the way he handled himself in front of the posturing Senators.

However, I think that the larger reason the debate moved was the serious miscalculation by to attack the General and his report before anyone had heard the details.

Without the ad controversy the MSM would have happily presented the Dems spin on the report.

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 7:27 AM

So if we are back to September 10, 2001 don't blame Gen Petraeus or the Bush Administration. Blame those fools who ask the question "are we safer now."

Bingo Jerry... Dead right...

dhunter makes good points also; the Republican candidate that displays the courage and the fortitude necessary to wage the upcoming battle with the Clinton machine; that man gets my money and my vote. The RNC has disappointed me to no end, and will get no support from me until the time comes where I see this organization go after Sandy Berger, William Jefferson, and Jack Murtha, et al...

General P is exactly how I expect an American warrior to be; a leader, a man of integrity, a man in love with country, a man in love with his fellow brothers and sisters in uniform, a man of courage and strength, an articulate man. It's no wonder why I admire our military personnel so much. Put General P next to just about any American politician and what do you see "integrity standing next to bullshit".

Posted by patrick neid | September 27, 2007 7:35 AM

While I hope that Petraeus has moved the debate I have a feeling that base politics may be the cause.

"She (Clinton) started making all the excuses on the Sunday talkies".

The next day the White House let out that Bush has been whispering in her ear the real news in Iraq.

I think these pathetic flip floppers (we knew they would flip) want George in their own ears because it hopefully would keep them from their second tier status. It's their smarmy little attempt at appealing to the middle right.

Lets see, this being Thursday, I have not seen any fallout on Hillary's Sunday comments. I don't think there will any. The left wants the White House so bad they will put up with anything from the front runner--even flip flopping on the war. The poodles know this and they are running to catch up.

Posted by Jazz | September 27, 2007 7:37 AM

While it was perhaps never his intention (and not really his job anyway) Petraeus may have accomplished what I would have thought impossible only a few weeks ago... another four years of the GOP holding the White House. Previously I would have only ruled out voting for Hillary or Kucinich 100%. Now there isn't one of them in serious contention I'd vote for. I still won't vote for a Republican in '08 unless Rudy somehow beats the swiftboating coming his way and manages to get the nomination. Time to start shopping for write in candidates to waste my vote on, which I had previously feared I would wind up doing.

Posted by John | September 27, 2007 7:39 AM

Well, Bush has been advising the Hillary campaign to ensure the smooth transition of both policy and power.

You get your Bush, your Clinton, your Bush, then your Clinton. Rinse, lather, repeat. Why are we bothering with the pretext of 'democratic' elections?

Posted by Gary Gross | September 27, 2007 7:43 AM

Gen. Petraeus did indeed change the battlefield in Washington. That's why the nutters are stepping up the pace to their below-the-radar attacks against him. I wrote about these attacks here & here. here's a small sample of the things they're saying about Gen. Petraeus:

As with his infamous op-ed piece in The Washington Post, just six weeks before the 2004 election, Petraeus continued to place his own career advancement over care for his troops, telling his civilian bosses what they want to hear rather than what is true.

Posted by Fox Noose | September 27, 2007 7:54 AM

Republitards lost the war and made an unholy mess o' Mesopotamia. Then they get all gleeful because the Dems are going to be required to clean up after their sloppy war effort. What sorry ass, undisciplined, blowhards the Republican party has become. Disgusting, like a bunch of war mongering 10 year olds on meth.

Posted by Amphipolis | September 27, 2007 7:54 AM

This is incredibly good news. The enemy strategy in Iraq is based on convincing America to leave quickly. This will kill that terrorist hope, and encourage those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democratic government to press on.

Posted by patrick neid | September 27, 2007 8:03 AM

I see fox noose is already making the appropriate excuses/rationales for flip flopping.

we knew you could do it fox.

cheers mate and welcome to reality!

Posted by Homer Simpson | September 27, 2007 8:13 AM

mmmmmmm...Democrats... is there anything they can't say....?

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 8:13 AM

Yes Patrick; it's the Liberal version of the "fox trot". Clumsy and anything but graceful.

Posted by dougf | September 27, 2007 8:27 AM

"Republitards lost the war and made an unholy mess o' Mesopotamia. Then they get all gleeful because the Dems are going to be required to clean up after their sloppy war effort."---Fox

"This is The Worst Commander in Chief EVER, and how people still support him? I just don't get it."-- Jan

Ah the smell of 'progressives' fuming in the morning. Smells like ------ Victory !!!

Posted by C Stanley | September 27, 2007 8:27 AM

Am I the only one who thinks this may be the reason that the Democratic candidates are backing off of their push for quick withdrawal?

I think that all along, the softness of the Dem candidates antiwar stance showed an underlying recognition that reality would set in if/when they were elected. They've tried to position themselves in a way to appeal to the anti-war contingency without boxing themselves in to actually have to deliver much- and now that we know that the WH has been giving them a peek into the real view from the oval office, it seems they're backing off even more.

Posted by hunter | September 27, 2007 8:28 AM

Fox Noose,
Speaking of spoiled, let me make sure I understand you correctly:
The democrats, who voted in majority for the war, at the start, but have actively worked to help the enemy to the point where AQ videos and democrat speeches are often indistinguishable, who have declared defeat at the DNC leadership level for years, have denigrated our allies in the war and scoffed at our Iraqi friends who risk their lives, are now going to clean up the mess in Iraq?
And you think Republicans are like '10 year olds on meth'. I think only a good lefty hack would know from experience what it is like to have 10 years old on meth. But I would think that in your case you are projecting when you talk about Republican behavior.

Posted by fdcol63 | September 27, 2007 9:00 AM

The Democrats' allegations that the Iraq War is a failure because an insurgency developed is exactly like saying our victory in Germany in 1945 was a failure because it led to the rise of the Soviet Union as a superpower and to the Cold War.

In both instances, we achieved our primary objectives to elimiminate the immediate threats: 1) Defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, and 2) Defeat of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

However, in both cases - as usually occurs - the effects of Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences followed:

What could go wrong, did; and there ensued consequences that few could have foreseen beforehand, and even if they could have been predicted, were not guaranteed to develop.

These consequences developed because the US does not act in a vacuum. Historical events build upon themselves like interlocking pieces of a puzzle, and American leaders act in reaction to, and hopefully in anticipation of, the actions of other nations and players.

It’s naïve to think we can be everyone's friend and ally, or even neutral. The US is often compelled to choose sides in international disputes to counter immediate or potential threats, and to make alliances with nations who share our democratic ideals, values, and political and economic goals.

This process inevitably risks creating hostility and enmity in those nations who don't. Often, there aren’t any good options, just the lesser of two evils or a realpolitik “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” choice.

Posted by njcommuter | September 27, 2007 9:18 AM

In my experience as a voter, during a campaign a lot of things get said, both by candidates and by people being polled. As the election draws near, both candidates and voters seem to get more serious about what they say, apparently because the real decision looms.

General Petraeus, I think, forced people to take things a little more seriously, a little less wishfully. And that would be a good thing.

Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | September 27, 2007 9:25 AM

The coffee is probably very sour at the anti-war office.

Posted by exDemo | September 27, 2007 9:44 AM

You don't have to even read any of the daily propaganda screeds from the leftist twits who dominate what we used to call the Journalism Profession.

All you have to do is look at the Democrats, the perfect fingers wavering in the wind.

Things are going so well in Iraq (and so poorly in pre-collapse Iran), that even the tiny elite of international anti American socialists who took over the American Democrat party and fixated on Defeat, has begun to RETREAT from that position.

They KNOW how to retreat and surrender; and these so-called Democrats are Good AT IT !

Posted by Rovin | September 27, 2007 10:16 AM

Not one democrat last night used the word VICTORY in their statements. NOT ONE!

I guess defeating our enemies in a victorious manner is not on their agenda, while pandering to the and the minions of defeatism was on the menu.

But, they ALL had their retreat rhetoric well rehearsed. Bravo!

Posted by D Kosloff | September 27, 2007 10:49 AM

The only HONEST answer from the candidates who spoke would have been: "The moment I complete my oath of office, I will give a direct order to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to begin the immediate withdrawal of all American military personnel." They have all now publically admitted that they are cowards and liars.

Posted by jvf | September 27, 2007 11:12 AM

Whether or not Petraeus "moved the debate", Iraq is still FUBAR.

Nothing has changed.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Let's not forget that the World's Smartest Woman (TM), Mrs. Bill Clinton, supported her vote to authorize the war with the claim that she was briefed by her husband's intelligence people before she made her decision.

Let's also not forget that all of the Dmeocrats were claiming Iraq was bad and had nasty stuff while Clinton was President. And that Clinton's own Justice Department cited a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda when they indicted bin Laden in 1998.

Of course, on the ringed planet the MoveOn people inhabit, recorded history didn't begin until January of 2001.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 27, 2007 11:23 AM

There's a better measurement stick.

Americans have generally regarded our military as "service." And, even the drafted soldiers who went off to WW2, did so KNOWING that "staying at home" meant they were inferior. 4F-rejects.

Do not underestimate the power of RESPECT!

That things went wrong? Yes. Starting with Truman "doing a job" on General Douglas MacArthur. Today, with all the pluses and minuses 'accounted for,' MacArthur's reputation blazes upwards. While truman was just "lucky." And, "lucky" again when the GOP made the mistake of running with Tom Dewey, in 1948. (As if Tom Dewey's loss to FDR, in 1940; didn't tell you all you needed to know about Tom Dewey's chances!)

But politics has taken some pretty bad turns; starting with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And, the madness that was LBJ. It was "his to lose." AND, so he did.

By the time Nixon actually got into the White House, the press went mad.

This is where the military suffers the most. Soldiers were spit upon. And, for the Bonkeys? Well, the dishonorably discharged 'Jon Cary, gigolo,' managed to marry wealth. And, climb the toilet, formerly known as the Bonkeys.

While, when Petraeus showed up in Congress. In full uniform. Americans, again, respected our service and servicemen. And, women.

What's NOT respected are the stinkers who got elected senator, from each and every state. Political whores.

In an environment where they need the old media to "sell their garbage." And, the old media is on the ropes.

As to Irak. This will be, in 50 years, known as a brilliantly played piece by George W. Bush. (Improving on his dad's weaker handling of Gulf War #1.)

There were two problems that needed to be surmounted. ONE: Getting Americans back on track to appreciate the long hauls that bring success to military operations. Ask yourselves, "so how long have we been in germany?" And, the answer, forms.

How long will we be in Irak? TO STAY.

Well, what about Maliki? He's up on the ropes. Just like the media. All that's lacking are the honest reports.

Meanwhile, pretty early on it became notice-able; that the safest mapping of Irak would form a federation. Not "another" beastial strong-man.

That's pretty much a done deal, now.

Each area is responsible for its own. And, maybe, not so surprisingly, Maliki hitched the Shi'as ride to the caboose.

The Kurds will work with ONLY ONE arab faction.

In the beginning? No one could bet if it would be the SHi'a. Or the sunni.

And. the sunnis went wild!

That's calmed down, now.

Mostly because we didn't go on shooting sprees.

HOWEVER, I've seen Michael Totten's photographs from Ramadi. ANd, what struck me is that when our military needs to create parking lots, WE DO.

But we don't do this once the natives become friendly.

Bush didn't make one announcement, really, about what the choices were.

He just let the "kids" figure it out for themselves. Here. As well as there. In Irak.

This is the largest part of all learning curves.

When people grow up and understand the world from points of view of adults.

Sure, the 1960's wrought changes. Men don't dress in 3-piece suits. With hats. And, ties. Clothes have gotten comfortable.

And, we grew a terrific private business world. Where, the next lesson? It's the old one, too. Keep the government out of breaking things with "solutions."

Posted by Philadelphia Steve | September 27, 2007 11:58 AM

General Petraeus did not move the debate so much as he moved the goalposts. President Bush's stated intention for the Surge was so that the central government of Iraq (the one that exists only within the Green Zone) could work. The fact that the US military could win battles in the field and control territory it occupied was never in doubt.

Now the Bush Administration wants to debate about how many more decades the Surge should last, not the fact that the Iraqi government will never exist as a central government again.

In that, stated goal, the Surge has failed. Which is why the White House, backed by loyal Conservatives, keeps chanign the goals, and the debate.

This will continue until January 2009, when President Bush will have successfully run out the clock and leave town singing, "we were on the road to vicotry when I was President" all the way. And someone else will have to clean up his mess.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 27, 2007 12:04 PM

"Pulsating Eco-systems."

Today, at Glenn Reynold's InstaPundit is a great article on why we're not subjected to "busts" the way other economies, are.

In other words? Pulsing, means dynamic. It also means that greed, and stupidity, which can bankrupt individuals, only makes for a "clearing of the board," and RE-GROWTH. Other countries? Stagnate. And, the example given was Japan's poor handling of it's bust, in the 1980's.

I think this "pulsing mechanism" is instrumental into why we're, by nature, more successful than other governments. And, yes. Even though we send clowns to congress.

All of America's best growth has occurred from private enterprise. And, then? Starting with our 5th President, James Monroe. Who went to Congress on December 2, 1823; AND. LAID. DOWN. THE. LAW.

It's called the Monroe Doctrine.

And, it stabilized our military footprint, globally.

Even though the Bonkeys are gonna suffer for korea. Because of the schlemazel, truman. And, Vietnam. Because of LBJ. Who thought he'd get rich on army contracts. While his estate is still considered a rich one. LBJ tanked the Bonkeys.

What followed was "affirmative action's days in the sun." A place where losers, who never got to control wealth, industry, banking, or the military; rose in power. Especially in wacky academia.

In a country that really doesn't give credentials a whole lot of respect. When some Americans become rich enough, they subugate themselves to the queen of england. So Tin Lizzie can give them a title. Worthless drivel.

We're on the right road.

Even with a lot of turkeys in congress.

But both parties suffer. BOTH were taken over by fringe elements. Who can't bring in the votes necessary to win beyond local districts, and states. ANd, that's why congress is in such a pickle.

The military had to regain stature.

ANd, it did.

It also works on less, rather than more. Because in really poorly run countries, like iran, they can have lots of men in uniform. But then? They fear a military take-over.

Check out dynamic systems. See how they pulse.

Posted by jpe | September 27, 2007 12:06 PM

This isn't a shift. None of the Dems save Richards, I believe, have ever promised to get every last soldier out.

Posted by Tom W. | September 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Leftists insist that they can use diplomacy to solve all problems, because they'll always be able to find the right words and facts to make the enemy see the light...

Yet you read the comments here from leftists, and it's clear that no words, no amount of facts, not even reality itself will ever change their minds. The monumentally retarded statement "Bush lied!" is still trumpeted, joined by other gems like "Iraq is FUBAR!" and "How can you Rethuglicans support this warmongering incompetent worst-ever etc. etc. etc.?"

Leftists are as fanatically dedicated to their cause as al Qaeda. By their own insanity, "progressives" show us the futility of negotiating with our enemies.

Posted by Robert | September 27, 2007 12:22 PM

"candidates are running away from the positions you and would like them to adopt because they see the Bush/Patraeus stategy as being the right one. "


They are afraid of being painted as "traitors" by the war-mongers.
(Hell, it worked in 2002).

Are we yet ready to come up with another party?
One that doesn't mind letting our brave soldiers die so they won't "look weak"?

Republicans and Democrats should be shipped to the iraq front-line (not the Green Zone).
The vote for a pullout would take place in less than 5 minutes.

I know i'm not supposed to be this upset, since i (personally) haven't been suckered into going to Iraq for a lie (to protect our freedoms--LOL), but it's still aggravating.

Posted by David M | September 27, 2007 12:23 PM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/27/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

Posted by Ron Simpson | September 27, 2007 2:15 PM

It amuses me that Hillary says, "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."
First I laugh at the assumption she or her party will win.
Second, the situation they "inherit" would be much better if the Defeatocrats would stop being a hinderance to the "situation." So it would bemuch easier to know if they joined the people planning for military victory.

Posted by jay k. | September 27, 2007 2:48 PM

funny that you ridicule the adults because they won't commit to a date for withdrawal of troops 16 months from now...when this administration and its cult of supporters, like those found on blogs like this, have been totally wrong on every single one of their predictions. today you have negative movement on the political front in iraq and (giving it the benefit of doubt) incremental movement on security. this incremental movement is due to an unsustainable 20% more boots on the ground, and some tribes in anbar that the administration turned away for years before they became desperate to show any progress even if it is counter to their stated goals. and now you want the democratic candidates to make a commitment for 16 months from now? stop for a minute and think about how much worse cheney and his sock puppet can screw this up given another 16 months. the difference is an administration who has no plan but to keep throwing blood and treasure at the situation (or even escalating the situation into iran) in the selfish hope of salvaging some sort of legacy, and adults who want to pursue a reasoned policy that is in the best interest of the nation. the voters who spoke in november will speak again. and the republicans who didn't listen then will no longer be in a position to.

Posted by tommo | September 27, 2007 3:28 PM

Petraeus is just another whore who cherry-picked (we now can all call that lied) information, as he had been for years now.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, you filthy fascists.

Posted by SoldiersMom | September 27, 2007 3:39 PM

Robert, "Our" brave soldiers didn't get any notice or sympathy from you when they were being killed in Somalia, in Marine barracks or on the Cole.

MSM didn't give a daily running count of these mounting deaths nor profile any of these men on the nightly news.

It wasn't until they were finally given orders to shoot back that the left and the MSM discovered them. Then they are either profiled as children and victims of the BushHitler warmongering machine, or mass murderers of the same.

You're not worthy to speak well or ill One.

Posted by fdcol63 | September 27, 2007 3:40 PM

" ... you filthy fascists."

Ah, spoken like a truly mature Socialist adult.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | September 27, 2007 3:54 PM

So now the anti-war types who may really never have cared one way or another about Iraq (it's hard to discern the BDS from heartfelt moralizing) are saying "we'll stay in Iraq and clean up the mess that the repubs created." Victory has a thousand fathers.

I can live with the new Dem attitude -- at least it no longer encourages our enemy. Btw, I think Gen. Petraeus' presentation contrasted with the Moveon ad might be an even bigger turning point than we realize in terms of politics and, more importantly, public support for our military folks not just in Iraq.

Posted by The Yell | September 27, 2007 4:05 PM

"this administration and its cult of supporters, like those found on blogs like this, have been totally wrong on every single one of their predictions."

Yeah like the one about Saddam's army collapsing before us, and the one about a provisional government erecting a constitution, and the one about holding elections according to that constitution...

Tribal political support IS political movement.

Will you use paragraphs after the Revolution?

Posted by jay k. | September 27, 2007 4:15 PM

actually cheney is the one saying "we can't finish what we started...tag your it." our enemy is not iraq, and wasn't in iraq until cheney decided to invade and occupy that nation. also...patreus's own men coined the phrase when he was a colonel. just repeated it - as did that drug addict/comedian rush limbaugh. i realize it's hard for some of you to seperate rnc talking points from fact though.

Posted by jay k. | September 27, 2007 4:23 PM

the yell...
and what was said about each of those forced milestones? that they would be turning points. turning points that either weren't...or turned the wrong way. add in the capture of saddam, the killing of ousay and whats his name, the capture of the fifteenth #2 al queda operative, and a bunch of other predicted turning pints that weren't.
tribal political support IS political movement. but why did the administration reject them for YEARS? and why are they embracing them now when it is counter to their stated goals? and why did they call the biden-gelb plan a non-starter when what is happening in anbar...and all over iraq for that matter is pretty much that plan...which they are now embracing?

Posted by patrick neid | September 27, 2007 4:25 PM

Jay K,

"funny that you ridicule the adults because they won't commit to a date for withdrawal of troops 16 months from now..."

I'm not ridiculing them for not committing to a date 16 months from now. I'm ridiculing them for wanting a date last week and now a few days later they can't settle on a date within the next 5 1/2 years! Admittedly I'm also ridiculing their supporters for backing these posers.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | September 27, 2007 4:30 PM

Links please. I would like to read about Gen. "Patreus" ' men calling him names.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 27, 2007 4:46 PM

Posted by tommo | September 27, 2007 3:28 PM
Petraeus is just another whore who cherry-picked (we now can all call that lied) information, as he had been for years now.

Keep drinking the kool-aid, you filthy fascists.

I see one of the Koskidmorons has dropped by to complain that people who support the nascent democracy in Iraq; support the elimination of the terrorists who kill innocent Iraqis; and support the establishment of the rule of law in Iraq, are (somehow) fascists.

This mentally challenged asshole wouldn't know a fascist if he looked in the mirror.

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 5:15 PM

Dear Blog.

"Petraeus testimony has made it much more difficult for the Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat".

If that is the case, then why just today Republican Senator Lindsy Graham , one of the main supporters of Bush's surge, said in an interview to Time magazine that he is giving the Iraqi Government 90 more days to get their act together, or he will press for a change of plans?

I know you Right Wing Republicans are trying to prove how "brave" you all are by staying in Iraq with no support from the Iraqi Government, but the only thing you are really proving is how stupid you can be.

If you think that changing a failed policy is "defeat", then we will show you what defeat looks like in 2008 --- First hand, up close and personal dear Republicans. Maibe then you will finally understand what defeat really means.

Deafeat is to ignore the will of the American people, and ignore the fact that the U.S. Army can't force the Iraqi Government to compromise. Defeat is to decend into a minority status where it will take you decades to recover.

Posted by patrick neid | September 27, 2007 5:48 PM

Sure Gil, anything you say. But us war mongers we are now happy as clams knowing that Hillary will be GWB II. That's all we want. Someone to pursue radical Islam militarily in Iraq, Iran, Syria etc to name a few places.

If Hillary gets elected--god forbid--there is one upside caveat. All the news from the war on terror will be good news. Hillary's "Joan of Arc" personage will be broadcast with each victory by our volunteer army. Nightly broadcast will show schools, hospitals, electric plants, new roads, healthy camels to name just a few of the daily topics that will run 24/7 on CNN and Fox.

Sadly however, you will be very depressed. Sorry.

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 6:08 PM

Truth is Gil,

It doesn't take a road scholar to figure it out; Democrats claimed a mandate following the 06 election cycle. The mandate was connected to the will of the American people "we want an end to the war in Iraq, get us out of Iraq now". All the Dems had to do was to cut off the funds for this war; plain and simple. Did your beloved Dems take this necessary action as their coveted mandate allowed for? NO, of coarse they didn't. Absolute fools "such as yourself" have been duped by your own beloved leaders, but yet you follow them around like sheep being led to slaughter. Truth is; if we "cut and run" from Iraq, the slaughter of millions will surely follow; this slaughter will be at the hands of the Dems who cut the funds for the war, therefore ending the war.The Dems were never going to actually do anything to bring about an end of this war; they have been duping you fools out of your money all along. BTW Gil, how did that debate go for you last night?

On another "duping" note. A top research scientist at NASA was just busted having taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from George Soros to provide false scientific data regarding Global Warming. News came out today that top World Scientists now have backed off their findings regarding the deterioration of the ozone layer, stating that they really don't know what causes this effect after all. Now how does that little duping do for you Gil. Your ultimate leader "Soros" has worked his way into NASA, and currently sits on top of your political party. Soros has his hands firmly around the throats of American politics due to his ownership of one of the two political parties controlling American politics. You might want to watch Hannity's America this Sunday night Gil; should be very revealing for all of you commies.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | September 27, 2007 6:12 PM

Still waiting for a link, jk.

Meanwhile, if I read a story about some of your former colleagues who claim that the person known online as "jay k." is really a "BIG FAT JACKASS" I'll post it here. Understand, it's not me doing the smearing, I'll just be reporting what I think I maybe may have read once. Somewhere.

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 6:14 PM

One more thing Gil,

Lindsey Graham has been duping Republicans out of their money for several years now. Gig is up for Lindsey, and he knows it. We rid ourselves of our "dirty laundry" as soon as the facts present themselves. Big fundamental difference between those of us on the right vs those of you on the left.

Posted by Robert | September 27, 2007 6:38 PM

You'll never find me comparing Bush to Hitler or Cheney to Darth Vader.
Bush isn't smart enough to be Hitler, and Darth Vader had military experience.

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 6:51 PM

Patrick neid.

If Hillary gets elected she will hire a General to back her story (wherever it might be), and you Right Wingers, I am sure will simply say "Can't argue with the military" and just follow Hillary.

Hillary's new policy will use the word "progress" a lot--- I am sure that's all you Republicans need to go with her plan right?

Who ever said what goes around comes around? Answer. A very wise individual.

Posted by Robert | September 27, 2007 6:58 PM

Rush Limbaugh (Tool-Corporate America) has called our soldiers "phony".
I'll expect a Senate and House resolutions condemning him any minute now (hell did just freeze over, didn't it?).

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 7:18 PM


Do you know how to count?

The Democrats can't pass anithing the Republicans don't want them to pass because they have a 1 vote majority in the Senate, and a 30 vote majority in the Congress.

The Republicans want to stick with Bush's policies, that much is clear. That's why I said if you want to be defeated again in 2008 fine, you own the war, and have no insurance good luck.

There is no question that in 2006 the elections were on Iraq, and corrpuption. There's no question that the Republicans lost a majority in a Congress you expected to keep for a generation. And there's no question you are repeating the mistake of 2006. I child could tell you that.

Now if you want to continue with a policy that as I mentioned in my previous post, not even Senator Graham is willing to continue any longer than 90 more days, then you deserve to loose pure and simple.

The American people want to win in Irak---- Just not with your pathetic policies. Get it?

The options you give of living Iraq or stay in Iraq are false options. No one is talking about completely living Iraq, so if you don't mind please inform yourself before you talk. You are following spin blindly. The policy that does not work, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION--- Is the policy that gives a bunch of corrupt Iraqi politicians a veto power over our policy. The policy that does not work is the demented idea that you can get a Democracy at the point of a gun if you only kill enough people. Pal grow up!!!!

Who with a SERIOUS shot at power wants to abandon Iraq completely??????? You keep on focusing on the likes of Edwards. or Richardson and pretending that they represent the Democratic Party. If tehy did pal, they will be on top of the ticket not Hillary.

As for your observation that there's no Global Warming---- All the Nordic contries are in a rush to claim more territory in the Artic Ocean for what????? . There's no Global Warming, only the Artic Ocean is melting, and every one (including us) is looking for mineral rights extensions in the continental shelf just for the hell of it right?

Man, what's next for you? Giving Stem Cells a social security number?

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 7:25 PM


So I see, Lindsey Graham is taking Republican's money for years now and so that makes his "90 day and I am out" remark what exactly?

By the way you did not know that politicians take money????

Say again, how old are you?

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 7:31 PM


Almost forgot.

We don't lie Bush's policies and that makes us commies? Funny I missed the part where Bush was against China. In fact, is he not one of the biggest supporters of trade with your so called Commies?

As for Sorros--Hey man, give the guy a brake-- After seeing Dick Cheney and his friends make fortunes on the war in Iraq, like the bandits they are, he wants a pice of the action too. What is it with you? You think only Halliburton can make money from Government contracts?

Posted by johnnymozart | September 27, 2007 7:43 PM


The Democrats can't pass anithing the Republicans don't want them to pass because they have a 1 vote majority in the Senate, and a 30 vote majority in the Congress.


Please share for us when the Republican filibuster was on the Democrat bill to completely cut off funds for the war and bring all the troops home.

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 7:59 PM

That's it Gil? You're way in over your head here troll. Our regular trolls here (ck, SFDude, monkei, et al) put you to shame.

There is no question that in 2006 the elections were on Iraq, and corrpuption. There's no question that the Republicans lost a majority in a Congress you expected to keep for a generation. And there's no question you are repeating the mistake of 2006. I child could tell you that.

The American people want to win in Irak---- Just not with your pathetic policies. Get it?

The options you give of living Iraq or stay in Iraq are false options. No one is talking about completely living Iraq, so if you don't mind please inform yourself before you talk. You are following spin blindly. The policy that does not work, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION--- Is the policy that gives a bunch of corrupt Iraqi politicians a veto power over our policy. The policy that does not work is the demented idea that you can get a Democracy at the point of a gun if you only kill enough people. Pal grow up!!!!

Who with a SERIOUS shot at power wants to abandon Iraq completely??????? You keep on focusing on the likes of Edwards. or Richardson and pretending that they represent the Democratic Party. If tehy did pal, they will be on top of the ticket not Hillary.

Geez Gil; you can't spell; you can't add; your mastery of the English language is truly remarkable. Thanks for showing up here and sharing your elitist self with us; very enlightening indeed.

Posted by johnnymozart | September 27, 2007 8:25 PM


I believe one of the talk show hosts, I don't remember which, referred to this as "battered -liberal syndrome". How many times have we heard from the big libs in Congress, "We must leave Iraq", "Leave Iraq now", "we need a timetable".?

Gil, you elected these people to do this. That's what you all have been saying for the last year, right? That the reason the Republicans lost the Congress was because the American people no longer support the war? And you clowns cited poll after poll after poll which you purported proved that this was why Democrats were elected: to get us out of the "quagmire" in Iraq.

And not only have they not done that, Gil, now they won't even commit to a withdrawal almost six years from now, despite their lofty claims to the contrary, and all throughout the campaign. They have lied to you again, and again, and again. And all you can do is spout the propaganda that even they don't believe in anymore. I believe one of the talk show hosts, I don't remember which, referred to this as "battered-liberal syndrome". But you'll keep coming back for more, they'll tell you what you want to hear, and you'll vote for them, and then there will be some excuse why they just. couldn't. do it. They recognize that withdrawal=failure and are desperate not to be saddled with it.

You elected these clowns, Gil, not us, and yet somehow, its still our fault that they told you one thing and are now doing another.

Ah, it is to chuckle uproariously.

Posted by Keemo | September 27, 2007 8:42 PM

Very well stated Johnny...

And to think; these people actually think they are the "enlightened" ones; the "intellectuals"... What they really are is "easily duped"; sheep being led around by silly talking points.

As Bill Clinton once said; make something up damn it, tell them something they want to hear; get those idiots off my back side... And the press responded with "blow jobs don't really qualify as sex", and the sheep all sighed deeply and said "yea, that's right, blow jobs aren't really the same thing as having sex". Easily duped bunch of fools.

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 8:56 PM


Are you trying to play alone here pal?

Is there anithing in the vote counting in Congress that you do not understand?

When I say that the Democrats can't pass a resolution that the Republicans do not like is there anithing you don't agree with?????

If the Democrats pass a resolution to support the troops in the budget is that supposed to be interpreted as supporting the troops, or supporting Bush? A kid can tell you that the Democrats SUPPORT THE TROOPS, NOT BUSH'S POLICIES RIGHT????

You are trying to argue with yourself here. As I already pointed out to Keemo. The Democratic Party does not support cutting off the funds of the military, and bringing all the troops home. I don't know what ever gave you guys that idea.

What the Democratic party does support is time tables to start the ORDERLY withdrawal of troops. No one in the Democratic party that matters has by the way said that we will take out all our troops. Again, I don't know what ever gave you that idea.

So again pal, when you try to play gatcha!! with the implication that Republicans never forced Democrats to cut funds, and brig the troops home, is because the Democrats never wanted that. To say that an extreme element of the Liberal wing of the Democratic party, represents the Democratic party, as you people constatly do, is what gives you the idea that Democrats want to cut funds, and bring all the troops home now. The fact is that as you just said, they do not. You in fact just made the point I was trying to make Keemo uderstand. The Democrats want to STOP BUSH'S POLICY of giving the Iraqi Government veto over our policies, and pretending that our Military can carry the water for politicians in Iraq, and here at home forever.


Do you understand now? Or is that too complex for you to follow?

We can continue to support the troops at the tune of hundreds of billions of Dollars per year, and thousands of lives lost--- But what good is that if the Iraqi Government does not agree to anithing? What good is that if the Iraqi people continue to fight each other?? what good is that if the very base of your so called policy "Creating a Democracy in Iraq" is a fantasy in some ignorant Gringo's delusional brain?

The Democrats want to continue to support the troops, but at the same time they WANT TO GIVE THEM A MISSION THEY CAN WIN FOR A CHANGE. That's where you guys and we Democrats part company.

Democrats want to win in Iraq just as much as you, the question here is what in your past record gives you the standing, and credibility to deserve one second more of support by any American?

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 9:13 PM


Look my friend. if you are trying to attack my credibility because I can't spell, then pal why do you still believe in a President that can't even speak the English Language properly ?? The "Bushism" Industry is by now in the hundreds of millions of DOllars, or you did not know that?

By the way Keemo not only you can't add for you contiue to insist that some how Democrats are supposed to stop the war with a one vote majority in the Senate--- Say how does that work Mr. Spelling bee??? BUT you hide in my spelling not to answer any of my points.

If what you want is a job as my secretary, just say so. If what you want is to attack my credibility because I misspelled some words, then accept on this blog that you don't believe Bush has any credibility because he mangles the English language on a regular basis, not to mention because he messed up the Iraqi ocupation, and was mistaken about much everithing in Iraq from day one...... OR IF YOU CAN'T SAY IT, OR YOU WILL NOT SAY IT AS I KNOW YOU WILL NOT ----- Then as you can understand be put in the position to be called a hypocrit.

OH I believe I misspelled the word "hypocrit"!!!!!!! . I was trying to call you a HYPOCRITE . There, can you understand it now?

Posted by gil | September 27, 2007 9:39 PM


no, no, my friend you are mistaken.

The show you mention was talking about the Republican Jail Bitch Syndrome.

You know the way it goes, You are the only white guy with a round behind, and you start to like being Fu @# ed, and beaten up by the "boss" on a regular basis.

MOOORE BUUUSHHHH I Want more messss in Iraqqq YESSSS more give moooore. Losing in 2006 is not enough, I want more of the same in 08 . I want pain, give it to me!!!!!

You know the syndrome now?

On your continuing insistance that Democrats some how have to stop the war because they won the elections--- (You sound like a Liberal now)
let's stop your games right now. Please Mr. "Mozart" tell me how do you win a veto proof majority with a one vote advantage in the Senate, if you can't get the Rerpublicans on board?..... I am all ears.

If you can't tell me how, then please stop playing stupid games. You are an adult I hope.

The Democrats can't force their one vote majority without getting Republicans on board. Republicans want to continue Bush's policies as they are--- Like I said, that's the way you want to play it, fine you are going down with the idiot in chief. If you had any brains you would have joined the Democrats in Stopping Bush's policies. In doing so you would have denied the Democrat's issue they will take to the campaign to bury you with. The issue is simple:


At that point even Bush's dog will be voting for Democrat.

Posted by Dawn | September 27, 2007 9:43 PM

I wonder if this person is the same one who referenced crack a while ago. Wow. Hmmmm.

Posted by johnnymozart | September 28, 2007 2:01 AM

The Democratic Party does not support cutting off the funds of the military, and bringing all the troops home. I don't know what ever gave you guys that idea.

LOL. Gosh, gil, whatever could have ever given anyone the idea that Democrats want to cut funds and bring the troops home?

Nancy Pelosi:

“I also want to thank you, Senator Reid, for giving us the opportunity to thank Americans United and others who are helping to spread the word across the country as to why and what the barriers are to bringing legislation to the Senate floor to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

Feingold Pushes Plan to Cut Off War Funds

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of the war.

"I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation's foreign policy."

Do Feingold and Pelosi represent the "extreme element", gil?

And of course, the Presidential candidates:

And I suppose "anyone that matters" precludes anyone in The US House, huh, gil? Are they "extreme", too?

House passes bill to bring troops home

Vote is 223-201 to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.

And of course, my favorite:

Lynne Woolsey and Barbara Lee (D) California

Notice all the other names of this bill, gil

We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully-funded redeployment plan.

What part of "all" are you having trouble understanding, there, Mr. Professor?

Dennis Kucinich (D)

“We do not have to fund the war. The Democratic leadership must tell the President NO to any additional funding. We can separately appropriate money to bring the troops home. The only thing required is honesty, integrity and a willingness to end the war,” Kucinich said.

“The Democratic leadership is playing into the Bush Administration’s hands by continuing to fund the war. What this Congress must realize is that we do not have to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. That is what the American people want. That is why they voted for Democrats to take control of Congress last November.

What part of "now" don't you understand, there, uh, Mr. Smart Liberal?

How about one of the biggest unions in the country? I guess they're extreme, too?

AFL-CIO Calls for Rapid Return of U.S. Troops

Chicago: In a major change of course, the AFL-CIO Convention delegates voted this afternoon in favor of a resolution calling for a "rapid" return of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

And in case you missed it, here's whole list of Democratic "Bring the troops home" merchandise:

And, of course, the obligatory wishes of the idiots who, you know, think like you, gil, when they think at all. Read some of the comments, I'm sure it will gel for you. Yeah, why would anyone think that Democrats want an immediate end to the war or to cut funding?

Are you simply misinformed, gil, or are you really that stupid......"pal"? The fact is, gil, whether you admit it or not, the "extreme fringe" is the Democratic Party these days.

So, you see, gil, if you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever, that the Democratic Party does indeed seek to cut funds, withdraw troops, or whatever means they think will create an immediate end to the war, regardless of the consequences.

The fact is that as you just said, they do not.

LOL. No, the fact is, the Democrat Party does believe this, you just keep electing people that pretend to care what you think and who are content to continue to abuse you as long as you continue voting for them.

At that point even Bush's dog will be voting for Democrat.

And unfortunately for you, which was my point, which you either ignored or are too stupid to understand; that the great white Democratic hope you have, who currently says that they agree with you, will take your vote, and then spit on you, because it is politically expedient for them to do so. They are afraid to cash the checks that they're mouths have been writing, as is evidenced by the responses of your great white hopes in last night's Democratic debate. The difference between us gil, is that you will continue voting in people who do this to you, whereas I will only do so long as they reflect my views. Maybe you should seek a halfway house or something.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 28, 2007 4:16 AM

Keemo and JohnnyM,

LOL. You guys rock. Don't wear out the keyboards though, shipmates. They only way your keyboard is going to have an impact on any of these if you use it to sap them along side their slack-jawed noggin.

What makes the Skipper’s blog so attractive to these pathetic trolls? Is it because the lefty blogs are nothing more than echo chambers where they all cry the same tune, drool on each other and wet their panties together? Or is it because more people read this blog so when they see their “name” in print they can jump up and down (ejaculate) then congratulate themselves for “talking Truth to Power” TM ?

Posted by Keemo | September 28, 2007 7:03 AM


Remind me never to piss you off! Well done...

Posted by Keemo | September 28, 2007 7:18 AM

Here is the raw reality for you Gil...

I'm sure that many of the anti-war libs and the Democrats today are walking around with heads hung low. Many of them probably called in sick, those that work. After last night's debate, you would have to expect the anti-war libs to be truly dejected. Let me describe for you what has happened to them. Make this about you. You have a date to the prom with the woman of your dreams. You love this woman, and this woman has accepted your invitation and pretty much said that she wants to do whatever is necessary to make you happy. So you go to the prom and you're all excited and can't wait for what's to follow the prom because she made the reservation at the hotel. So you go through the prom and you go to the various things that happen at the prom, and you're building with uncontrollable, near-orgasmic excitement as this relationship blossoms and evolves -- and the prom comes to an end and it's time to go to hotel, where she made the reservation, and when you get there, you find out she has canceled the reservation, and you look around, you're at the front desk, you look around, and you see her walk in with your worst enemy. George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are heading up to another room that she made reservations for, dumping you!

This is how they feel. Now, why did I say Hillary and George Bush? Because of my suggested list of possibilities for why all these Democrats make me look like a genius last night: They said that they're not going to pull any troops out there before 2013. Remember the little ditty that we had earlier this week about Bush advising Democrats to be careful? Through back channels, behind your back. George W. Bush -- Satan personified in your world, George W. Bush -- is in back-channel talks with not just Hillary, but all the other Democrat presidential candidates, and saying (paraphrased), "Look, I understand you gotta be political here, but one of you may end up sitting where I'm sitting and you're going to have a whole different worldview, and I'm just asking you -- I'm just advising you -- do not lock yourself into positions in this campaign that you're not going to be able to maintain once you sit where I'm sitting," and don't think that the rejected libs out there don't remember that. Now their world has fallen in on them. Mrs. Clinton has effectively told them that they are pond scum and that she was leading them on from the get-go; that she never intended to get into that hotel room with them after the prom. She was already huddling with George W. Bush. (RL)

Posted by jay k. | September 28, 2007 7:31 AM

nice personal attacks. try searching colonel betrayus. it's not too hard to find.
this was posted two years ago on a pretty pro military site;
"I don't know GEN Petraeus personally...but when I was in the "Devil Brigade" folks called him "Colonel Betrayus". He came up with things like the "Devil button" (button your BDU collar up to the top when on jumps) and the "Devil grip" (special name for keeping your trigger finger out of the trigger well) which sounded hokey to most of the troops at the time."

Posted by jay k. | September 28, 2007 7:37 AM

patrick neid...
so you think that predicting 16 months out is the same as assessing the situation on the ground today? on what planet does that logic work? look at what anyone said about iraq 16 months ago...especially the cheerleaders. they were all wrong. and now you want to ridicule people for honestly saying that we have no idea what the situation is going to be on 1.20.9. amazing.

Posted by Patrick Chester | September 28, 2007 8:06 AM

Oh please, do read the entire link jay k provided and not just the comment he quoted.

Especially the main article.

So, some troops called Petraeus "Betrayus" back when he was a Colonel not because of some betrayal of some sort but because he had some policy that seemed... hokey. Ooooo... wow, you folks really will seize at any excuse to justify slandering people.

Posted by David Graham | September 28, 2007 9:28 AM

I can't believe how gullible some people are. The general is a subordinate to his Commander-in- Chief. His boss gave him orders to put a good spin on a shitty situation. If he wasn't willing to be a henchman and accomplice in the immoral, illegal, unjust war of aggression and occupation of Iraq, then he would have been fired or could have resigned his commission. Other generals who had some intergrity have already done so. Like Shinsiki (sp), the general who at the outset said the operation would take 3-400,000 men to work. The Bush Administration canned him, and the compliant main-stream media burried the story. Yet some credulous Americans see Petraeus on T.V, looking good in his uniform with all his decorations and think "he looks credible; he's a soldier" instead of "this guy's just another flak shilling for his boss who has lost all credibilty." Whether a politician lies using his own lips or using lips that belong to someone lower in the chain of command, it's still lying. The occupation will go on. The "enduring" bases will go on. The killing will go on. Until America goes bankrupt that is. Check the spectacular plummet of the dollar against the Euro and ask yourself "could this open-ended forever war against an abstract noun (i.e. "terror") have any thing to do with it?" Quit letting immoral scoundrels wrap themselves in the flag while they pick your pocket and ruin America's future. "Support the troops" is not a basis for foreign policy. And for those of you in the military, study history, learn to tell the difference between an unjust war and a just war. Disobey unlawful orders. Think before you kill or get killed. Go C.O. or desert if you have to. Your sacrifices are not just in vain, they serve an evil purpose.

Posted by Robert | September 28, 2007 9:33 AM

"you just keep electing people that pretend to care what you think and who are content to continue to abuse you as long as you continue voting for them."

Q. Which party pretends to care what the people think, but continues to abuse the voters as long as they keep getting elected?
A. Both of them.

When will America join the world and get an alternative to this one-party ($$) system they have?

want to watch TV? You get 156 channels to choose from.
Want an ice cream?
You get 31 flavors to choose from.
Want to vote for President of your country to lead you for the next 4 years?
You get 1.2 parties to choose from.
(Both support the war, but at least the Dems have military experience).

Posted by Keemo | September 28, 2007 10:19 AM

(Both support the war, but at least the Dems have military experience).

Well Robert, who in the Dem party with military experience are you referring to? Would that be Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; John Edwards; Biden; Obama...

The "both support the war" theme disqualifies you from having any relevance in this conversation. The moveon - Kos base of the Dem party will not allow for any "support of the war" by any members of the Dem party...

Posted by Robert | September 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Cleland, Kerry, etc. You know, the military vets the Right has been trashing for oh these many years. (beacuse they REALLY support the troops and hate when the military is insulted--as far as you know).

If the Dems were against the war, they wouldn't have voted for it in 2002 and they would have stopped funding it by now. Throwing good money (and lives) after bad isn't just for our MBA'd President, don't you know.

The and Kos base can not be listened to. They were right about the war being a disaster, so obviously they (like me) aren't relevant to the conversation either.

Meanewhile, the dumbing down of America rolls-on unabated.
Don't forget to take credit, Keemo.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | September 28, 2007 7:25 PM

jay k.,
You must be kidding with the web link. To justify Moveon's smear you're using a blog comment from a commenter who may or may not be in the military and wrote about what may or may not be a harmless/endearing nickname that some soldiers may or may not have given Col. Petraeus a few years ago. You might want to skim the recent Nutpicking post on this site.

You'll have to explain the nutpicking rules to me, if one commenter says the opposite of another do they cancel out each other's opinions? From the same 2005 discussion a commenter wrote:

[Gen. P.] is just brilliant and the Army's going to be a lot better off in the future with him setting the direction of training and doctrine.

You'd think if there really was a negative story to tell about Gen. P. the NYT and everyone else would be telling it.

I'm not surprised that you're trying so hard to defend moveon. You do have a hard time identifiying personal attacks. Re-read my "attack" -- it was a conditional statement. Next time I'll turn off CAPS lock so that maybe you'll read the small print as well.

Posted by Robert | September 29, 2007 2:09 PM

Pay no attention to the 200,000 weapons lost in iraq when under Petraeus' guard.
Those weapons are only killing American soldiers.

Caring about American soldiers lives is so last week.

Posted by Mike Toreno | October 1, 2007 12:03 AM

I think the Moveon smear was disgusting, and there's one and only one way to stand with the American military to show that such criticism of public officials by American citizens is intolerable:

Posted by Mr.EX-President | October 1, 2007 1:30 AM

man, your country, if represented by this discourse is well on it's way to third world status, on another note your currency I use as toilet paper now and I've been perusing some nice real estate to buy over there, plenty available now at cheap prices. Keep going the way you are and you'll never recover, your enemy isn't islamofacists it's your own extremism. cya

Post a comment