Captain's Quarters -

Putting facts in front of Democrats again, Captain? I have warned you about that - do you really want to burst the bubble that they live in and release all that hot air into the environment? Sheryl Crow and The Goracle will get mad at you!

Facts and Democrats go together like a crucifix and Dracula.

Sorry, I called you Captain Bob instead of Captain Ed and didn't realize my mistake until after I published it.

It's corrected now.

Great post!

I think it's time to protest Searchlight Harry's idiocy in a different way-BOYCOTT his state of Nevada. Just might work...

Does anyone else get the feeling Reid is not the brightest bulb in the pack? I mean, seriously.

Captain -- I've called for craven Harry Reid to step down and ask that you consider doing the same.

Senator Reid to General Petraeus: You Are a Liar

-- Bob

Bghdad Reid lies whenever he feels like it so it is no surprise that he misrepresents everything from your fact vs myths.

If it doesn't fit with his message he simply makes it up as he goes along.

Sen. Inhofe: Harry Reid Should Be Recalled:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/25/153524.shtml?s=ic

Hate to say it, Cap'n, but this blog is reading more like a copy-paste job on RNC Talking Points every day.

The captain resorts to rovian tactics..... when the gop ship is sinking with scandals, attack Democrats. When the war in Iraq is a fiasco, question Reid's patriotism. When the Bush administration out and out lies about how Pat Tillman died, attack some Democrat, this will take the spotlight off the corrupt and incompetent GOP. Is that all the gop propaganda machine got left? The gop's tactics are disgusting. Their rabid followers are like lemmings who will follow them off a cliff. Hit em harder Harry, their almost in full panic mode now. Now, the Democrats are speaking truth to power. The gop slime have no where to hide. Crawl back under that rock you came out of.

jiHymas@himivest.com , would you please post a link to the RNC talking points. My search engine can't find them. I post on here once in a while (read it every day) and personally I think you are in the throes of going from BDS to insanity. Or did you already, someone in NV did and attacked the RNC office? Cho progressed a few days ago and killed 32 people and one mangy dog (himself). Now that man was chanting the democrats talking points that had already been aired.

Did anyone see the democrats whiz kid (Manuel, sp) today. He stood in front of some really smart (they claim) people and told a dozen or so outright lies, yet no one had the guts to call him on any of them. Would you trust anyone that told that many lies in one meeting? Not me, if he will lie to you he will steal from you. Momma told me that 60 years ago. Still true today.

These talking points would be considerably more impressive if Petraeus were Commander-in-Chief, rather than Bush.However, Bush is the one in charge, and it is Petraeus's job to carry out Bush's stupid plans.

Basically, what Petraeus thinks is interesting, but not the most important thing. What is important is that Bush has declared his intention to keep America in Iraq forever (or until we "win," which is the same thing), and therefore Bush wants America to be defeated and humiliated. Reid naturally wants to stop Bush from humiliating and defeating America. Apparently you don't.

And about this talking point about whether the solution is more than military: has Bush shown any signs of doing anything about the political/diplomatic side of this? Of course not. He refuses to do anything that would be necessary to forge a solution, like disavow any intention of attacking Iran, cut a deal with Syria, cut a deal with Sadr -- all unpleasant things that will have to be done if Iraq is ever to be pacified. Bush doesn't want to "solve" Iraq; he merely wants more Americans to die so he won't have to admit he failed.

If Bush agrees to try something serious toward the political/diplomatic solution, maybe normal people would be willing to accept the "surge" as a component of that. He isn't doing anything, so the only thing to do is pull out.

I favor a boycott of Nevada until they recall this traitorous bastard. Of course, when the phone starts jumping off this desk from angry casino owners, Harry will suddenly become uber-warrior! Okay, in his mind he will.

RE: jiHymas@himivest.com (April 25, 2007 07:52 PM)
Hate to say it, Cap'n, but this blog is reading more like a copy-paste job on RNC Talking Points every day.

says the drive-by talking-pointer.

It's amusing,

If we read Harry Reid correctly, he's saying that a liar is claiming (a) the war is lost, (b) the military is not part of the solution, (c) the surge isn't working, and (d) no further funding of the war is needed.

Why do I get the feeling that, in this case, three fingers (and possibly a lot more) of Harry's hand are pointing back?

I posted today comparing the Democrats of today with the fifth column of yesterday except that the are not clandestine, they are out in the open and useful idiots, to borrow a phrase from Lenin. From reading some of the comments, they are not alone in that.

Well Said Conservative Democrat and M.A.!!

The more the Koolaiders squak, screech and cry the more on target the Opposition IS!!

No, not the Dems - but the OPPOSITION - includes ALL Libertarians, 75-percent Independents, and 1/3 of YOUR PARTY BASE.

The Curtain is falling Neocons - game over.

A close member of my family knew this guy fairly well: He was the first casualty of the Truth - you shall be the next when all shall become exposed including your fantasy view of our World.

http://www.alternet.org/story/49233

You want myths of Harry? Well, I remember when Harry Truman, another one of these donk wonders; managed to win one term to the White House; in 1948.

By a mistake of HUGE proportions, the GOP (in their usual moments of fear) left General Douglas MacArthur, as a bride. To stand at the alter. With her groom gone missing.

Instead? The GOP ran John Dewey. AGAIN. John Dewey lost to FDR in 1944. Think about it. How many months after winning his 4th term as president, did FDR die?

Put this sentence another way. John Dewey couldn't win against a man who was so sick, the campaigning was very limited.

Then? He gets the ticket. Not General Douglas MacArthur.

So, sure. The name "Harry" and the donks, go back to myth making satus for a long, long time.

By the way, I'll repeat this: WHAT YOU SEE IN HARRY REID IS A PERFORMANCE.

What you don't recognize, though, is that he is purposely acting like a grandpa, long past his mental prime. So, the kiddies are not gonna get scared.

Have I got news for you!

Tom DeLay's testicles hang on nancy pelosi's ears. He met her one night in an alley where politicians go practicing their craft. She's swifter than him.

And, like Harry Reid. Look so "maw and paw" that you're off your guard.

Let me tell ya. You want professionals? The donks have them. And, you're still stuck picking John Dewey.

If you're out at sea, the way to measure depth. If you want to see how deep things are under your floating boat. You throw out a rope. It has knots, at various places. One man tosses the rope. And, another calls out.

MARK TWAIN! If you believe the crap you hear reported, you can miss the obvious. Your ship is floating above a bottomless sea. ANd, someone just told you to cut your engine. And, throw the throttle in reverse. YOU TAKE FLIGHT.

You're scared. ANd, your fooled at the same time.

While the passengers? They just gaze at the beautiful day.

While the captain knows the truth. Steering is everything. Maybe, it's time to get out of the shallow waters; stop noticing grandma, and grandpa ... ANd, begin wondering how come the donks know what works?

Until Truman saw Ike, he held his place.

Once he saw Ike nominated, he like LBJ, after, ran all the way home.

Politics is not a religious revival.

The GOP still has sticking points with lots of people who see the world through different pairs of glasses.

You cannot come up with one message that's gonna fit everyone. Especially when you want them to buy your point of view. It sounds free. But you get nothing. If you're not getting lots of votes.

When George Herbert Walker Bush disappointed lots of republicans, back in 1992; 9-million voters withheld the votes they gave that man in 1988.

Politics. Math. Share common ground. They say its hard to do, because math is hard. And, the future holds the numbers. All you can do ahead of time is guess.

You want to waste your time on "harry" ... go ahead.

But once upon a time, in American politics, men like harry were a dime a dozen. You'd see them in large cities and small. On saturday afternoons. Getting their shaves and a haircut.

The world's changed, buster. And, fads pass.

Iraq? Today I followed Glenn Reynold's link to Amazon. To buy Col. Hunt's new book. Seems we've been making mistakes on the ground, there, now, for 3 years.

grandpa reid is small potatoes to throw. Because lots of Americans see real problems.

Me? I just think Bush is the Realtor to the House of Saud. I count on the Man Upstairs providing Israel with yet another miracle.

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1522

4,3,2,........................1...............0

time for more squak, screech, and nashing of teeth......

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/galloway/17103049.htm

M.A. wrote:
Basically, what Petraeus thinks is interesting, but not the most important thing. What is important is that Bush has declared his intention to keep America in Iraq forever (or until we "win," which is the same thing), and therefore Bush wants America to be defeated and humiliated. Reid naturally wants to stop Bush from humiliating and defeating America. Apparently you don't.

Having america recall its troops its troops and ceding ground and victory rights to both Iran and Al Qaeda in additon to opening the floodgates on civil wars in the region, in additon to increasing exponentially the terrorist recruits who will flock to jihadism after laying claim to a victory against the great satan will be the defeat. Bush is trying to prevent that from happening. Unlike your side which will not only engender defeat in Iraq, but similarly in Afghanistan which too is a quagmire, low level civil war, lasted longer than WWII etc etc ect ad infiinitum.
What's really annoying about your statement is not even that though. what's annoying is your use of the word "forever". You're so into your bush hatred you think he's actually a dictator like Chavez who will be in power forever (forever is an awful long time) as opposed to merely another few years when his term runs out and someone else is elected. So the idea that Bush wants to keep the war going FOREVER is more of your standard hyperbolic demagoguery. If a democrat were to actually win at the next election they can simply end the war with the stroke of their pen no? Chavez might be in power forever, but then again he's one of the good guys because he like those armchair revolutionaries that scream bloody murder on internet chat sites, said mean words about Bush. Yay Chavez!
However, once Bush is out of the way, we can look back at all the hyperbole and hysteria of the left wing fringe and note that at no time were we ever in danger of turning into a theocracy, at no time was anyone, other than suspected terrorists rights ever seriously threatened or impigned by the patriot act, at no time was any group be they muslims or gays rounded up like Hitler (or FDR - lib hero that he was) would have done. In other words all the hyperbole we've heard from the caterwauling crowd can be looked at for what it was. Caterwauling hyperbole. In the meantime Iran will still be trying to get Nukes and Al Qaeda will still be trying to attack us and spread their brand of jihadism around the world. The Truthers will be proven to have been a bunch of insane people and the exact same threats that faced us under Bush will still be with us. And people will wonder why when we were faced with, perhaps the greatest threat we've faced that the dems would go out of their way to give a key strategic, tactical, symbolic victory to Al Qaeda an our true enemies merely because they were pissed off that Bush was a republican. That they had their heads so far up their collective asses that they not only ignored THE key threat of our time, but did their best at every single turn to bad mouth and deagogue ever single effort to combat it even at the expense of liberal democratic ideals. Women getting the right to vote? Not standing up dictators anymore (isn't that why they hate us becuase of our always propping up the dictators?), neutering of the UN? Pshaw! Bush is the real villain. We must defeat Bush.
But we're down for fighting the REAL war against Al Qaeda, you'll say. Please. You're stil fighting going into Iraq. We're well past that now. If through some magic twist of fate, we arrive at a field wherby we are fighting Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda acknowledges that its the key battle against the west, why on earth would you suggest it was a good policy to dleiberately lose that battle? So we can find some mystical front where we can really fight al Qaeda? That makes no sense whatsoever, but such is the strategery of the dems. But as they've already given away their tell, Al Qaeda knows that the dems will give up in Afghanistan too. Because all they have to do is up the body count with flashy car bombs. Then its a quagmire. Then we're targets and we're involved in a civl war and the war is going on too long etc etc etc. The dems can't even stick to their guns in acknowleding that they thought Sadaam was a threat when they were in charge. Yeah yeah, its ancient history. Who can remember as far back as 1998 when Clinton and Gore (he who uttered "he betrayed us!!!!") were bombing Iraq for WMD'S and who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which calls for regime change in Iraq because of the exact same reasons that Bush outlined when he actually took Sadaam out. No lying then of course. And the dems do have such short memories, or are so craven that they can actually with a straight face still suggest that they were duped into saying the exact same things they said before.

The name calling is not going to help ya.

It's on par with kicking the tires of the Edsel, because customers are not coming in to buy the darn thing.

Besides. I think Bush does SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS, better than he mangles the language.

Why, in heavens' sake did he put any eggs in the Gonzales basket?

Ya know? When he plucked Harriet Meirs to go to the Hill for the chance of sitting on the Supremes; the donks were just lying in wait.

True. There was a big eruption, here.

But there was a bigger one, according to the author of SUPREME CONFLICT, right in the White House!

They tried to hard to prep her. (As if you can learn Constitutional Law's in's and out's in a few weeks.) Most people would be shy, given such ignorance. But Meirs was sure she was a shoo-in.

Yet when she was being prepped, she treated the answers she did not know by "mumblling." As if a Marlon Brando act was just the ticket.

Yes. It sickened Bush to know that if Meirs didn't withdraw, she would humiliate him once she reached the Hill.

Like his dad, Bush does NOT take advice, well.

He certainly wasn't going to bother to listen to Arlen Spector! (Heck, DeLay has his day, in his new book, when he goes back to the time, he went to the White House, from the Hill, to beg Bush #41, not to renege on his "read my lips" pledge.

Once some people have jobs with star power; they really become impossible to live with. Bush, and here I mean BOTH OF THEM, are sure everyone else is disloyal. And, not being loyal enough. When the truth gets told.

Choose to ignore truth at your peril.

Harry Reid is a much smarter poltician that I thought. Yeah. I bought the name calling bull shit.

You're not gaining customers!

And, Bush can't duck.

Why? Because the wounds are self-inflicted. That's just who he is. And, he's in way over his head.

Of course, you're sure if you name-call long enough things change. HELLO. Kids grow up! The name-calling crapola is school yard nonsense; only in schools that perform poorly. And, don't give the kids enough homework.

MYTH #2:
General Petraeus Does Not Know What Is Happening In Iraq

No, FACT!!!

I read Petraeus' testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and I came away with the impression that he's out of touch. Consider this exchange he had with a noted War Whore:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: And you have said that you believe this new way ahead for Iraq that has been presented, with military, economic and political components, is in fact a new and different strategy for Iraq than what has been tried thus far. Is that correct?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I believe it is, yes, sir. There are cases in Iraq where this has actually been conducted in the past. Fallujah, which remains to this day since it was liberated and has become one of the better gated communities in that region, is an example of that; Tall Afar is another example, although again, we have to continue to watch the hold and build piece of that.

THE REAL TALL AFAR

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tallafar26mar26,1,3576045.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=la-headlines-world

The large-scale offensive in September, dubbed "Restoring Rights," may have rid Tall Afar of hard-core insurgent cells. But today this ethnically mixed city has become mired in the same sectarian strife and economic problems that afflict much of the rest of the country.

"Violence has increased, mortar attacks have increased, roadside bombs have increased," said Mohammed Taqi, a national legislator from the city who recently wrote to Iraq's interim president and prime minister, requesting that Tall Afar's administrative affairs be handled in Baghdad rather than the provincial capital, Mosul.

To prevent more violence, the streets have been blanketed with troops. Four thousand U.S. troops and 8,000 Iraqi troops as well as about 1,700 police officers are in the city of 200,000 residents, said Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division. MacFarland acknowledged that "there's a lot of intimidation going on" in the city, adding that most of the recent violence is between tribes. Many of Tall Afar's residents remain displaced, some waiting for compensation to rebuild their homes, others fearing violence. MacFarland estimated that about a quarter of Tall Afar remained empty, with parts of the city still uninhabitable.

One sheik, Hashim Antar, said rebels were targeting Shiites to incite sectarian violence. These days, he said, Shiites cannot safely visit the city's only hospital. "What is increasing is the targeting of the Shiites by the terrorist groups," he said.

"The situation is bad in Tall Afar," said Mohammed Abdullah, a 52-year-old retired government employee, as he was leaving the Khalil Yas mosque in the Sarai neighborhood Friday. "Every day we hear about the police and the army clashing with armed men [and] random assassinations between the tribes," said Abdullah, a Sunni. "The people can't live their normal lives. The man is afraid of his brother."

In a press tour last week arranged by U.S. officials to highlight advances made in the city, Mayor Najim Abdullah Jubouri said he believed it would take at least three years before Iraqi security forces would be able to secure the city without the help of American forces.

But six months after the U.S.-led operation destroyed parts of the city, the local government has not honored claims from thousands of families whose houses or businesses were ruined. ... The mayor said that processing paperwork for nearly 30,000 families had taken longer than expected and that, eventually, each family would receive 250,000 Iraqi dinars, or about $170.

MYTH #3:
General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution

"And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

Gen. Petraeus, 3/8/07
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10475&Itemid=128

Hey gaffo,

Just like your fellow travelers to take a poor guy's suicide and twist it to your own ends.

Col. Westhusing had personal problems other than the ones stated in the story, because the ones discussed are not enough to cause a person to take his own life.

Your poster child here is the ultimate selfish person, who says he loves his wife and children and then does something which will hurt them forever, and which also goes counter to all the teachings of Catholicism, supposedly his bedrock.

Of course, that kind of selfishness must certainly appeal to you. You understand it, you revel in it, and that's why you posted it.

MYTH #3:
General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution

"And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

Gen. Petraeus, 3/8/07
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10475&Itemid=128

MYTH #3:
General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution

"And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

Gen. Petraeus, 3/8/07
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10475&Itemid=128

Sorry about the duplicate posts!

My bad...

I hate to say but I found this to be a rather weak effort. But then it looks like this is a forwarding of White House notes and that goes a long way to explainig why it is less than convincing.

More about Myth and Fact here including examples of how Reid should have been discredited.

btw, commenters conservative democrat, jiHymas, scrapiron, Carol, and Steve J can probably get something out of the link above.

As for MA, I'd like to offer some info but I fear any effort would be in vain, like trying to explain colors to a blindman.

The mind boggles...

Let's look at the democrat positions on Iraq:

THEN: Saddam was a threat and had to go.

NOW: Saddam? Saddam who? Oh, him. Unpleasant fellow, but hardly worth worrying about.

THEN: We need to foster democracy in Iraq.

NOW: Iraq will never be a democracy, and it's stupid to try.

THEN: Saddam had WMD.

NOW: Saddam never had WMD.

THEN: We need more boots on the ground!

NOW: We need less boots on the ground.

THEN: Bush doesn't listen to his generals!

NOW: Why should we listen to the generals? They will lie to us, anyway.

THEN: Bush lied when he declared "Mission accomplished"!

NOW: Let's just declare mission accomplished and get out.

THEN: Quagmire!

NOW: Quagmire!

THEN: Bush is stupid!

NOW: Bush is stupid!

And they say Bush is stupid...

Does anybody remember if the dems made the same kind of arguments back in '73 (you know, the last time they lost a war)?

On the subject of a boycott of Nevada, I think it's a splendid idea. Once the mafia stops hearing the sounds of slot machines humming along, they'll have a little chat with Dingy Harry (or should I call him Grand Admiral Reid in honor of his sudden military expertise?) and we'll stop hearing his Tokyo Rose impressions.

Right, Steve. Now, show me where he said that the military has no place. Because what he's actually saying, if you read it like you're trying to understand what he's saying and not just looking for words to twist into a different meaning, is that militarily, you don't win wars. You win wars politically. Trouble is, you usually have to win the war militarily first before you can implement a political solution. It takes several components, not just shoot them until they fall. But of course, since your goal is to just try and score cheap political points by leaving out important details, or even lying if necessary, the truth means absolutely nothing to you. Typical lib.

Steve,
As has already been pointed out the general isn’t saying that there is no place for the military as part of the solution to the insurgency in Iraq just that it is not a solution in it’s self.
“With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.”

Steve,

I'm curious.

Are you playing "gotcha" by siezing a small portion of what Petraeus actually said out of context, to try to score a point?

Or are you genuinely unable to read an entire paragraph, discern its meaning, and make a fact based reply?

I sent a email to white flag Harry on Monday, calling for him to resign, both his leadership position and his seat. Funny, no reply yet.

Whoa. The shrillness of the GOP today is deafening. It's like the Bush water carriers are running around screaming bloody murder because they've been given a gigantic wedgie by the man who is most representative of We The People. I'm sure you've seen the latest polls. If you haven't, you still have your head in the sand, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Do you think the succinct and impeccably documented PBS Bill Moyers special has anything to do with it?

Bush republicans, sorry to say: YOUR ASS IS GRASS. No amount wailing and smearing is going to make things better for you at this point. You've painted yourselves into a corner with the sham war you unabashedly promoted for the last 6 years.

Now you're paying the price for the shameless chicanery of the administration you hold so dear.