I am almost beginning to feel sorry for the R's

[tower912]

Bush has to have school children shushed while in New Orleans so that they don't ask questions he doesn't want to answer, he can't have a photo op with the local senator (Vitter) because Vitter is still persona non grata over the phone number in the prostitute's phone book thing, Gonzales resigns and the R's think it is a good idea, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901927.html
the GAO puts out its Iraq report and all the White House can do is acknowledge its accuracy but complain that the GAO doesn't give points for making progress, and that doesn't even begin to get into the Larry Craig fandango.
    Thank God the D's will inevitably do something stupid to shoot themselves in the foot.   How long until Midnight Madness?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think the R's will do fine if one thing happens.


HILLARY


If Hillary isn't nominated, then the R's are in big trouble.  If she is, the R's will be ready to go and rejuvinated in a big way.

[mviale]

I am afraid my dems will take this huge opportunity and squander it.  However, we can always depend on the republicans screwing up royally in their hypocrisy.


By the way, should we add Nancy Pelosi on the back of a milk carton?

[Murffieus]

They'll likely squander it because the party of Harry Truman has been captured by moveon.org!

[ChicosBailBonds]

They'll likely squander it because the party of Harry Truman has been captured by moveon.org!

Most Americans believe war is not lost, 54%.  Of course, when you break it down by party, 66% of Dems say it's lost and only 9% of Republicans.  Interesting.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/richard-newcomb/2007/08/30/zogby-says-most-americans-believe-iraq-war-not-lost-press-says-noth

[Murffieus]

Only Bush haters want us to lose in Iraq (their emotion of hate overwhelmes their thought process as to the consequences of failure)-----the fact of the matter is we can't afford to lose there----if we did Iran extends its influence in the region and becomes a big winner controlling Iraqi oil to boot, Al Quida another big winner and attracts more money and following in addition to a sanctuary, plus Turkey becomes embroiled in war against the Kurds to ethnically cleanse the area----plus the potential of a much bigger ethnic/religious civil war.

How is of this is in the best interests of the US?

[mviale]

Yah - thats it.

They just hate bush

[Murffieus]

Well of course the people who want us to surrender in Iraq are the Bush haters----they don't want him to succeed-----never mind the defeat "somehow we will survive".

Mvaile----you should be honest with yourself here-----you don't like Bush and you don't like the war. Now, you'll never admit it, but if a Dem president had done the same things that Bush has regarding Iraq----you would have bought in and at the very least given him a much longer leash on Iraq than you've given GWB. Now be honest!

It's all in the perception-----you want Bush to fail so the Dems get a chance to succeed!

[tower912]

Let us turn it around, Murf.  If a D president had invaded Iraq, all of  the reasons given for going in turned out to be wrong, his team badly mismanaged it, 4 years in with little to no progress, and the mastermind of the whole 9/11 operation is not only still at large but growing his organization, would you still be supporting the D?    If so, why would you be supporting a D president who had screwed something up so completely?   I wrote several months ago when the surge was first proposed and implemented that it was my fervent hope that it would work EXACTLY as advertised so that we could get the hell out of that quagmire.   If only.    No, Murf, I wish SOMETHING this administration did turned out to not only work, but be truthful.    And actually, I am a huge Bush fan these days.   He and his Neo-con cronies have done more to prevent a permanent R majority than anything the D's can come up with.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let us turn it around, Murf.  If a D president had invaded Iraq, all of  the reasons given for going in turned out to be wrong, his team badly mismanaged it, 4 years in with little to no progress, and the mastermind of the whole 9/11 operation is not only still at large but growing his organization, would you still be supporting the D?    If so, why would you be supporting a D president who had screwed something up so completely?   I wrote several months ago when the surge was first proposed and implemented that it was my fervent hope that it would work EXACTLY as advertised so that we could get the hell out of that quagmire.   If only.    No, Murf, I wish SOMETHING this administration did turned out to not only work, but be truthful.    And actually, I am a huge Bush fan these days.   He and his Neo-con cronies have done more to prevent a permanent R majority than anything the D's can come up with.

Except Tower that "all of the reasons" didn't turn out to be false.  In fact, of the 8 or 9 reasons given to the UN and to the Congress, only ONE reason turned out to be false...a reason that almost every intelligence agency in the world and the previous administration all believed to be true.

So if you're going to put up a hypothetical, then at least do it honestly.

[mviale]

Some people need to realize what is good for the Party is not always good for the country nor the party in this case.


lets take the blinders off.

[Murffieus]

Tower----somehow I can't picture you as a "huge Bush fan".

You say, "We went into Iraq with the "stated" reason turning out to be wrong".

But was the "stated" reason for going into Iraq the real/main reason? I mean Saddam had WMD for over 20 years and we didn't seem to care. Going into Iraq was for a number of reasons (Sadaam was supporting terrorism, ripping off the UN which is mainly our money, shooting at our planes, tried to assasinate a former president, had the capability to mass produce WMD and sell to terrorists, and maybe the biggest reason being we needed a strategic presence in the area as Iraq is right smack in the middle of the hostile portion of Islam as well as the majority of the worlds oil supply source".

Now the war didn't go according to plan as Rumsfeld tried tio win it on the cheap and wasn't able to immediately crack down on the looting and lawlessness etc-----not near enough troops initially!

[tower912]

Bush was told there were no WMD's, chose to ignore it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

And if you read deep enough, you see that no one in congress was given the intel that Bush was that he chose to ignore.

And now, in the book "Dead Certain", GWB is quoted as telling the author "I'm playing for October-November.....to get us into a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."     So, this is political posturing.

The world IS a dangerous place and there are people out there who DO want to do us harm.  This war has created more of them. And kudos to Germany for their arrests.

[Murffieus]

Tower----please understand that on EVERY issue there is a majority viewpoint and a minority viewpoint----what took place as described above (if indeed it took place was a "minority" viewpoint)----the overwhelming intelligence showed Saddamm to have WMD.

To say that Bush "knew Saddam didn't have WMD" is ludicrous-----your link states that Tenet only mentioned it once to Bush----if he really believed no WMD, he would have been much more emphatic in his communication of such to GWB and whoever else needed to know-----much more emphatic as in the end it was Tenet who lost his job for presenting misinformation!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bush was told there were no WMD's, chose to ignore it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

And if you read deep enough, you see that no one in congress was given the intel that Bush was that he chose to ignore.

And now, in the book "Dead Certain", GWB is quoted as telling the author "I'm playing for October-November.....to get us into a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."     So, this is political posturing.

The world IS a dangerous place and there are people out there who DO want to do us harm.  This war has created more of them. And kudos to Germany for their arrests.

Oh friggin unbelievable.  Tower, Bush was told SLAM DUNK there were WMDs.  Was there some owl in the woods that said there weren't?  There always is.  Just as only 51 Senators authorized war in 1991 against Iraq....49 of them were screaming that we would lose 10000 men, etc.  The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of intelligence agencies said he had WMD, we knew he had them in the past, he wouldn't let inspectors in, etc.

You can do better than that, you know you can.


I'd strongly urge you to read Georges Sada's (former 2 star general in the Iraqi military) book.




100% of the profits go to helping Middle Eastern children by the way