http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10047584.html

JDR, posting that comment is akin to posting a one-day drop on Wall St. and crying out, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Mr. Cole, you're exactly right. The liberal news media constantly barrages the public with anti-Bush and anti-war stories flavored with their liberal opinions. Wonder why the public is against our President and the war? Because all the news they hear is against him, and the news is what the public uses to form it's opinions.
If the President comes on TV and makes a statement, the rest of the day is filled with Pelosi, Kennedy, Harry Reid, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, etc., calling him a liar or making fun of the event. When the public sees these "slam" pieces one after another, day in and day out, pretty soon they believe that's how the rest of the country feels, because that's all they see. Then the news media polls the public they've so heavily influenced and, guess what? The public agrees with them!
The news media doesn't even have a hint of fairness or impartiality anymore.

It's a great thing Al-Zarqawi is dead, but the insurgency will keep killing without him.

This LTE writer is quite irrational. Because one speaks the truth when that truth is horrible, doesn't mean one hates the troops. Just another "I'm more Patriotic than you" thing.

It seems to me that supporting the troops and supporting this administration are impossible to do at the same time.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/so-how-bad-are-things-in-iraq-really.html

An excerpt:

Iraq Is Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C

jackbar, no point in pointing out the facts to the chicken little crowd. They are not interested in them. They would prefer to live in their world where the lamestream media feeds them what they crave: Doom and gloom... and it's all Bush's fault.

Hook. Line. Sinker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

"no point in pointing out the facts to the chicken little crowd."

Neo, would you like to compare apples to apples? A city compared with an entire country? These were civillian casualties. How about military casualties? I would think that those numbers would be important to look at, given the large number of car bombs and suicide bombers in Washington DC.

Note the American war fatalities in Iraq compared to other conflicts and listen to the lamestream media... no comparison. Hook line and sinker?... Right back at ya, bud.

Like I said, stick to your daily dose of the lamestream media links for your fix if it helps you make it through the day.

Must have rescinded your standards to post here again huh? Don't bother on my account. I've heard all the gobbledygook before... "Bush sucks, but I support the troops." "The marines are murderers... but I support the troops"... "Innocent Iraqis are being raped and killed.... but I support the troops"... "War for oil... but I support the troops"..."Rumsfeld and Cheney duped Bush into the war...but I support the troops"... yada,yada,yada.

Have a nice day if that's possible for you. I hasve my doubts.

These people cannot grasp the fact that in order to "support the troops", you must support the mission also, neo.

Meanwhile as far as Zarqawi goes, here's the truth about what his death really means. Those other folks who think what happened 10 days ago is "no big deal" don't want you to think about what this link tells us.
(hat tip: fecundstench.com)

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20060616.aspx

Interesting link Bubba. I also heard on one of the cable news outlets this morning- can't remember which one, most likely FOX as they are about the only credible news outlet left- that those documents took off of Zarqawi had the blueprints for a cyanide attack on NY city's subways.

The liberals bleating about how insignificant the death of this piece of **** is were singing a different tune a couple of months ago. Same will happen when bin Laden eats one of those 500lb. bombs. They will say the military is "trumping up" the importance of this.

Gotta go now. Just received my father's day gift: Ann Coulter's new book. Finally get to read something by someone who knows the liberals like I know the back of my hand. lol lol

Indeed an interesting link Bubba. I like the photo of the cute blonde wearing the "Defeat Hillary" T-shirt complete with the hammer and sickle. Gotta go now, my wife is coming into my office and may read this.

Nobody really knows yet how important the death of Zarqawi will prove to be.

The future is contingent, not fixed.

Zarqawi was clearly a very bad guy, and a bitter enemy, and the world is a better place without him.

But will that make a big difference in Iraq? I don't know. Neither do you.

Nobody will know for a while to come -- the answer isn't hidden, it's undetermined.

As an individual, his importance is probably more symbolic than decisive, especially since his own people ratted him out and al Qaeda is built as a network, not a command-and-control structure...but symbolism is important. The fighting in Iraq has long since been sectarian and intra-Iraqi, not driven by the foreign element, yet the role of the foreigners can't be denied.

Here's how the pro-Bush Wall Street Journal editorial page put it: ""[U]nless Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Coalition partners seize this chance to revise and revamp what has been a failing security strategy, it's an opportunity that could pass quickly."

As for supporting the troops but not their mission, of course that can be done, and is, by millions of Americans.

One can regard our troops with respect and admiration while questioning the political decisions made to deploy them, and such questions are not the same thing as wishing bad things for the troops.

Let me finish that last thought -- questioning or outright disapproving of the mission upon which troops are sent is not the same thing as wishing for the mission to fail.

I thought our invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do when and how we did it, but I hope it works out.

My dismay at the mismanagement of the situation there doesn't mean I don't support the troops. They've done their jobs well, and even if they don't, I appreciate their hard work and sacrifice on our behalf.

Interesting article on Al-Zarqawi and his plans:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19484555-601,00.html

99% of the intelligence gained from the 'safe house' Zarqawi was hunkered down in will most likely never be known to the general public. The tidbits we receive is only the tip of the iceberg, imo. Just because they don't reveal what they have to left leaning newspaper columnists, doesn't mean they have nothing.

The links provided by Bubba and Mrp (the latter being an Aussie publication and not under the thumb of the Bush administration like the WSJ) seems to suggest that there is more substance to Zarqawi's death than symbolism. We may see this proven out but probably will never know the full extent of the intelligence gathered there.

Thanks for your rational and insightful comments, Ed.

"I've heard all the gobbledygook before... "Bush sucks, but I support the troops."

Not ready to compare apples to apples, are you?

Ed- Well said.

You want to compare military casualties in Iraq? Compare them to Vietnam or WW2. This graph was provided in the link I posted but apparently you didn't bother to look at it and instead launched into your predictable "apples to apples" routine. They are but a fraction of those conflicts. But to listen to the lamestream media drone on and on about it one would think our armed forces have been dismantled completely by the car bombers.

Back to the point: The left wing media is having a collective fit over the bagging of Zarqawi. Anything that is good for our armed forces, Bush, or the new Iraqi government, is bad for their darling democrats. Note all the comments by the liberals that start with "It's a good thing Zarqawi is gone... BUT "... that "BUT" meaning we are hopeful that his shoes can be filled quickly so Bush will not get any accolades for bagging him and our democrats will not suffer at the ballot box.

The elimination of Al Zarqawi brings cries from the liberals that he will be replaced, like that means the fight is not worth fighting. I say good, trot out each replacement and Bush will silence the him....but you have to know their efforts are futile and the terrorists while twisted are not stupid, whereas liberals.........

First - now I know where Lilbean got her mis-leading Crock of Crap: " ... by far more people are murdered in the US daily than are in iraq."

To which I accurately responded: ".. in 2004, the USA had a population count of 293,655,404, with 16,137 murders.

http://davecoop.net/2004.htm

Iraq has an estmated population of 28,807,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

To match the USA rate, they'd need 1583 murders annually - that's 4 a day. It's fair to conclude you're wrong.

all at http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/06/keeping_troops.html#comments

Second - I'm so glad that (most likely) FOX, "the only credible news outlet left", is so up to date about the "documents took off of Zarqawi [with the] blueprints for a cyanide attack on NY city's subways.

... and apparently only three years behind:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/lat-061806qaeda_wr,0,3419694.story?coll=la-story-footer

Third: There is no response to the continued Spining Lies that continue - lumping the majority of Americans that are not Puppets of the NeoClass into the opinions of a few. Here're some examples.

Shehan may rail about the 3000 Dead Americans, but most of us know that's a very low count - the question we raise - the issue we have - was and is - was going into Iraq half cocked the best way to fight a couple hundred wacky zealots?

No one I know diss's the death of Public Enemy Zarquwi - No one I know think's it's Mission Accomplished. To spin it into a lump - as many here are doing - is disingenuous.

etc - I'm getting bore, frankly

Finally - I sincerely hope this is sthe beginning of the end for the Insurgency, but I do confess to hoping the electorate long remembers what a mess this adminstration and it's closed-circle of cronies put us into - 'cause even the best estimate is it's been "all of the bad things that can happen do, thus saying ____ for each thing until this becomes cluster ____ "

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal editorial page (quoted above with its "yes, but..." opinion) is rooting for the Democrats...and people who notice that a piece of good news does not end the war are hoping for defeat. Whatever.

Tom Friedman in the NY Times has been saying that the next six months will tell the tale. Problem is, he's been saying it for a couple of years now. To remark that this is a long process and bigger than one man is not defeatism, it's paying attention.

Southern Patriot, the replacement for Zarqawi is probably not the biggest issue we face, because al Qaeda and the foreign fighters haven't been the main problem in Iraq for some time now. We need to gain control in Baghdad, and (after a relatively peaceful interlude) calm the rival Shia factions in Basra.

We may look back on the death of Zarqawi as a milestone on the way to victory. I hope we do. Or we may look back on it the way we do on the capture of Saddam: a battle won, while the war continues.

Shout all you want about the liberal media and such, reality is what it is: uncertain.

No one is dissing the death of Zarqawi? Grand Pooba, from the Washington times,June 9,2006:

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military, and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess get out."
"This insurgency is such a confused mess that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant," said Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat. "Our troops are no safer today than they were yesterday. And no American is safer today."
White House officials "can spin it all they want," he said.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out of Iraq. "We're there for all the wrong reasons," he said.

This is what the democrats and their allies in the lamestream press fear - From a UPI poll dated June 13th:

Asked to rank the importance of Zarqawi's death, 53 percent of those asked said it was a major achievement, 36 percent said it was minor and 9 percent said it was not important at all.

Also, Grand Pooba, the subway attacks story was mentioned on FOX because of a new book release on the subject. My mistake in relating the death Zarqawi to the news story:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205320,00.html

I said no one I KNOW diss's the importance to Zarqawi's death - I do not know those you mentioned. I'm sure Cindy Shehan and Tony Snow both have a spin- but I do not know them.

The point was - most folks are more realistic and rational than the fringe elements whom you keep insisting speak for the majority.

I accept your apology on the FOX Mews link (deliberate typo).

" Note the American war fatalities in Iraq compared to other conflicts and listen to the lamestream media... no comparison. Hook line and sinker?... Right back at ya, bud.

Like I said, stick to your daily dose of the lamestream media links for your fix if it helps you make it through the day."

The hippies over at the Uber-Liberal Wall Street Journal's opinion page would like to have a word with you:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008392

"We of course sympathize with the broader point King and Colon are making. But it's important to be careful with numbers. Without meaning to, they have painted a misleadingly Pollyannaish picture of Iraq, and that's the wrong way to counter the liberal media's misleadingly Cassandrian one."

yada, yada indeed.

Thanks for the links, Denizen.

I do find it fascinating that the "Conservative Right": those that speak to keep the Government out of our personal lives, those that constantly rant how Private Enterprise can do everything better than Federal Beauracy, etc., etc., give all that up when someone declares "national security trumps our right to privacy".

... they declare "national security" - and anything can becomes open to government intervention - very Orwellian ya ask me - and you can bet you're nest egg that if Bill Clinton were doing the exact same thing, these exact same "Conservative Pundits" would be screaming blood murder - 'cause hey, it's not really about security - it's political power, and nothin' else.

Proof? Consider the attitude being taken towards the US Chemical industry - nasty plants that present a clear and obvious danger to the near-by cities, but they found it cost too much to fix, and when C. Todd Whitman presented this reality to the DHS, and she was declared a RINO for not towing the line for the Party of Big Business, and diss'd out of office.

Glad you are back, JDR. How was your trip? Did you hear the Diane Rehm show at 10 this morning. Worth listening to.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

See...I can post links too.

Not sure I get the connection between the environmental wackos, C.Todd Whitman, and private enterprise have with the lamestream media being in the hip pocket of the left by downplaying the Zarqawi death in order to help their minions in the democratic party, but I suppose it was inevitable.

Listen to Diane from the link above, Neo...you might learn something.

Heck JDR, I loved the way Bill Clinton handled the search and seizure situation in 1993 which the ACLU tried to have declared illegal but the court upheld him in 1997. So if he wanted to continue doing the same thing today it would be fine with me. I frankly think he did a pretty good job on national security issue during his first term at least. Didn't do much in the 2nd but I feel sure he would have handled it much in the same way and probably would behandling National Security much the same way as it is being handled today. He certainy set a precedence for it. Good for Bill. I'd even buy him a good cigar!

"As for supporting the troops but not their mission, of course that can be done, and is, by millions of Americans."

"I thought our invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do when and how we did it, but I hope it works out."

Do you want the mission to be successful, or do you want it to fail?

A "Yes" or a "No" will be sufficient answer, Ed.

"Shout all you want about the liberal media and such, reality is what it is: uncertain."

There is nothing uncertain about the constant drum beat of those who would use the war as a political wedge issue aginst the Administration. We have had this conversation before on your blog, and you are no more convincing in your words here than you were there, Ed.

There is a certain political group who will SAY or DO ANYTHING to regain political power, regardless of the cost to the nation and our people. The American public is well aware that this group is the one currently out of political power.

Wow, I must be a modern day "Rip Van Winkle!" Is it the Summer of 2007? Who is my Senator? Congressperson?

I hate that I slept through that, I would have loved to see the Democrats beat the Republicans in 2006. Oh well, maybe I will be awake the next time. Hopefully I will not be as tired for that go round!

Shalom

Carol, if I suggested you tune in to Sean Hannity because you "might learn something" what would your reaction be? He has retired (and active) military personnel as guests.

In spite of what you may think, those who disagree with you aren't necessarily illiterate oafs who get all their news and talking points from right wing radio. I was what you would call a "right wing nut" long before anyone ever heard of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I saw the error of my liberal ways during the mid 60s. It was LBJ and his ratcheting up of the vote buying scheme he called the 'war on poverty' that converted me from the liberals' socialist ways.

So the next time you suggest someone listen to a radio personality because they "might learn something", consider this: they may already know what that radio personality (and their guest) have to say and disagrees with them. Ever consider that as a possibility?

"It was LBJ and his ratcheting up of the vote buying scheme he called the 'war on poverty' that converted me from the liberals' socialist ways."

It's true that LBJ's response to the Civil Right's Movement, including the 'war on poverty', converted many Southern Democrats to the Republican Voters; you must have been one of the many, Neo.

According to Bartlett, Nixon then became the King of the Buying Votes through Legislation and Executive Decree, a dubious honor left untouched until George W. Bush - who has far out-done Tricky Dick.

Our very own JC Burcham was to read Bartlett's book; hopefully to report back here .. ARE YOU OUT THERE JCB? What was your take?

Carol - In case you missed it, Neo is Clairvoyant - he has stated, e.g., he knows what I'm gonna write before he get's the second sentence - so no reason to listen beyond Bush won, Stay the Course, Get Over it, and Work Hard.

What can these guys* add to what Neo already 'voyants?

*Lawrence Korb (senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration), Tod Lindberg (editor of "Policy Review", a research fellow at the Hoover Institution) - both radical Commies, by the way, or Jonathan Weisman (reporter for "The Washington Post" and therefore Useless Lame Steam)

neocon, I listen to Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, read the paper, listen to NPR... I like to hear what they all say. I have gone to the links you suggested. The show on NPR yesterday was a very good discussion, not a Bush bashing as you assume. Again, listen.

How do you think Johnson handled the war in Vietnam? Poorly I would say. How many died while he was in office? Too many.

A war on poverty in the USA could be won. A war on Iraq cannot. If we are fighting terrorism, we have chosen the wrong country. Do you not agree that our handling of the war on terrorism has caused many who were neutral to now hate the USA? If our country were invaded, would you not become an insurgent? We are in the midst of what is now a civil war in Iraq, caused in part by our interference. While I do not think Saddam was a good man or a good leader, it appears to me that Iraq has to have a strong dictator to have a degree of peace.

cRockefeller, why bring up Nixon in the vote buying scheme? You socialists rail against those who respond to your criticism of Bush by citing what slick willie did during his administration.
For the record, I'm against anyone who uses public funds in order to buy votes, regardless of which party it may be.

"Center for American Progress". Is this what they call Marxism now? Again, I don't care which party they once belonged to. This has meaning only to you and likeminded liberals who seek to justify their socialist views by citing 'they were once in the Reagan administration'.

Do you feel Carol is lacking in what it takes to respond to my questions? Is this is a vote of 'no confidence' in her?

Bubba, in your question to Ed, I would like to ask what you define as "the mission". Japan has declared their mission accomplished and is removing their troops from Iraq.

Carol, I listen npr a few times a week. It is your condescending remark "you might learn something" that I resent. I am not a pupil in your government run school system where you had a captive audience.

I was simply asking you to listen to that particular segment. It was very informative.

All agreed that an immediate withdrawal was not a good idea. One guy had a good proposal and good arguments. He said we need to set a date so that the Iraqi government would not assume the USA would provide secuirty forever. As in the welfare state, we don't want them to become dependent on us to take care of them. A date for withdrawal would give an incentive to prepare to take care of themselves.

There was also discussion on Iran. It seems Iran wanted to talk in 2003 and our administration didn't choose to talk at that time. Reasons were given.

Grave mistakes have been made. Stay the course needs to cease. We need a new plan.

While I still think going to Iraq was a mistake, it is time to do something besides continue on the same course.

I did not mean to seem condescending. Know how that makes me feel.

"In spite of what you may think, those who disagree with you aren't necessarily illiterate oafs who get all their news and talking points from right wing radio."

There is, however, a pretty good case here.

Clarification: the above statement was made in reference to Neo's sticking to a right wing radio/blog talking point, despite its being logically defective and shot down by other conservatives.

"Shot down" by someone else's opinion from the wsj? ... Since when does the wsj have credability with the socialist liberals? Oh, yeah, I forgot, when they write an opinion that slightly dovetails with your outlook on a republican. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

The news outlet you libs love to hate is leaving the lamestream media outlets in the dust. Wonder why? Like I said, stick to the msm for your fix, you still have a couple of years of therapy left. Who knows?... The dems may gain a few seats in the house this fall and you will be able to remove the IV for a couple of hours every day.

One more thing, since npr is so great why do they have to beg congress for a cut of the stolen tax $ in order to stay afloat?

They don't have commercials every 30 seconds.

Speaking of tax dollars...on NPR this morning they had a discussion on Afghanistan. Guest said we needed to pour much more money into the country to rebuild and make sure they had a modern way of life. Is that a good way to spend tax dollars, IYO? How about the billions in Iraq? Congress seems happy to continue to fund war. Send my money to NPR and yours to Iraq.

"Japan has declared their mission accomplished and is removing their troops from Iraq."

Good for them.

Your point is......?

Point: They had a mission, no combat, just help. They have declared their mission accomplished. Again, what do you see as our mission?

Neo: as answer to your question, " ...why bring up Nixon in the vote buying scheme?"

Because you said Johnson was vote buying with his Great Society. Perhaps Johnson was vote buying, or perhaps he was sincerely trying to help the underclass. I don't know much about it, however his War on Poverty was clearly a failure, and it was Clinton who ended welfare (as we knew it) with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act), " ... 1) It shifted welfare from an entitlement to greater requirements for compliance by the client. 2) Placed a lifetime limit of no more than 60 months of benefits and 3) Was instituted as a block grant to states, allowing much greater freedom to the individual states to determine the rules of compliance. There is also a component that aims to encourage two-parent families and discourage out-of-wedlock births"

AND because Nixon WAS definately vote buying, and you voted for him - twice

AND because Bush IS definately vote buying, and you voted for him - twice.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277/sr=1-1/qid=1150842127/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7893810-2233461?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

Methinks you're a phony, as witnessed by juxtaposing the above with your statement: "For the record, I'm against anyone who uses public funds in order to buy votes, regardless of which party it may be."

Carol is quite capable of standing up for herself.

"Since when does the wsj have credability with the socialist liberals? "

Not being one of their ranks, I can't say.

I can, however, say that that was some nice tapdancing around the fact that all signs point to the fact that you're wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Just man up and admit it- we're all friends here. C'mon- even the stalwart conservatives at the WSJ can admit that the comparison is not apt, even while praising the thought- why can't you? Certainly anybody who's not a bullheaded illiterate oaf, spoonfed with talking points can see the difference, why can't you?

What are ya, chicken?

"You voted for Nixon.. twice" You voted for Bush ...twice"..

Who's clairvoyant NOW, cRockefeller? You don't know anything about me or who I voted for or - where I lived in the mid - 60s.

"Methinks you are a phony"... lol lol
When will you learn that I really don't give a rat's a** what you think of me? I get worried when you agree with something I say. Same goes for your flock.

For the record, methinks you are a blowhard with a big vocabulary and very little substance beyond wikipedia, csm, and npr links.

"Man up"? lol lol You are a broke record. And by the way, I'm not a chicken my friend. I've got the scars to prove it.

So who did you vote for Neo?

Bubba did the same thing - har-harring me over my clairvoying his opinion over going into Iraq -- then almost immediately admitting I was correct. I'll bet a good cold beer I'm right: Would-have Nixon Once - but you were not old enough - Nixon Twice (18 was eligible to vote in 1972), and Bush twice.

I agree neocon, Denzien is a "blowhard with a big vocabulary and very little substance beyond wikipedia, csm, and npr links."

Keep up the good work!

Shalom

"Point: They had a mission, no combat, just help. They have declared their mission accomplished."

And the relevance to the thread was.....?

"Again, what do you see as our mission?"

To make sure things like this continue to happen:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

....and to provide an effective political counterpoint in the War on Terror in the midst of those who support terror.

".....it is time to do something besides continue on the same course."

Please share with us what that "something" might be, Carol.

"Bubba did the same thing"

Rocketfeller The Mindreader at our service.....

OK cRockefeller, you can call me many things, but a liar is not one of them. I never did vote for Nixon. I wasn't in the US when he ran the 2nd time and it was a hassle to vote an absentee ballot. But I'll give you that one anyway - I WOULD have voted for him. I did vote for W twice although he was not my first choice in the primary by far. Forbes was my choice.

One more thing: Slick Willie signed the welfare reform act only after the republican congress rammed it down his gullet. I know, I know, you can provide npr links to the contrary, but we both know this is true.

I wasn't refering to Denzein, Darryleepoo.

One must be able to "read to comprehension" eh, Darryleepoo?

You are like a fish out of water without the world traveler.

""Man up"? lol lol You are a broke record."

Look, it's not that hard to admit that you're wrong. If you've got scars from admitting that you're incorrect, then you should practice backpedalling more often.

You ready for apples to apples, sir?

Does not matter, whatever comes from the keyboard of neocon; I BELIEVE IT!

Send questions on this to me at my email address.

shalom

I posted a proposal above which seems to make sense to me. If we have no proposed date of withdrawal from Iraq, we are enabling the Iraqis to be dependent on the USA for their security. A proposed date would give incentive to learn to protect themselves. They took a year to form a "government". How long will it take to train their forces? How long do we train our soldiers before sending them to Iraq?

Our continued presence is the cause of much of the "insurgency"...how do we determine if one is an insurgent? Are they from a country other than Iraq? Are they Iraqis opposed to the American presence?

My continuing belief is that the religious factions in Iraq will never agree. The only "peace" will be when one group has total control over the other, and this will be
a Sadaam-like regime. They don't write nasty comments to each other online. They kill each other.

Our first mission was to remove Sadaam from power and find the WMD's that were a threat to the USA. Sadaam is on trial. Suppose he is found not guilty. What then? Why not say our mission is accomplished and plan for a withdrawal of US troops.

...to provide a political counterpoint...now that is gobbldygook to me.

Denzein, I have nothing to "man up" to. No apologies. The wsj has their opinion, I have mine. Continue on with your broken record mantra, apples to apples, if you wish, makes no difference to me. Just seems kinda pathetic.

Sweet Darryl,
"Send questions on this to my e mail address"

I'm sure your mailbox is overflowing with inquires over "this"!!! Still on your mission!!? Do you find it AMAZING that I'm still here!!?

I find it amazing that you are able to type two posts (however incoherent they may be) consecutively without the world traveler to lead you around by the nose.

Neo - I didn't call you a liar. I did say you voted for Nixon (or would have), and that Nixon was the vote-buyer for whom you claimed you would never vote. If you want to say "... but I didn't know at the time", that's acceptable - but you can't make that same claim with Bush - and that makes you a hypocrite.

Bubba - I once said you had been one of the early rah-rah's joining the "fight 'em there" chorus. You said I would have no way of knowing that, which is true in an absolute manner, but in the same thread then you said in fact you had been one of the early rah-rah's joining the "fight 'em there" chorus. I'd look it up but that is a real pain to do in this blog system.

Show me the R's "rammed" PRWORA down Clinton's throat. It was in the Contract for America so you may try to make the derth of ideas "claim", but Candidate Clinton had made a 1992 promise to “end welfare as we know it.”

1991:

"We should insist that people move off welfare rolls and onto work rolls. We should give people on welfare the skills they need to succeed, but we should demand that everybody who can work and become a productive member of society."

http://www.4president.org/speeches/billclinton1992announcement.htm

1994

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

I never said you called me a liar, cRockefeller. I said you can call me many things,but a liar isn't one of them. (meaning I wouldn't lie to you about whom I voted for) As far as being a hypocrite, are you suggesting had I voted for Kerry, or Algore they would have abolished the welfare state? Dream on, dude. I vote for the lesser of the evils.

Also, I know slick willie campagined on welfare reform. So why didn't he make it law in '92 or '93 when he had his own party in charge and it would have been a breeze? He had no intention of making welfare reform law until the the republicans jammed it down his gullet. If you believe he did, you are more gullible than I imigined. But this is not a unconceivable.

Make that "inconceivable". Don't want the typo police on me. *grin*

To those who insist things are going great in Iraq, please read the link below

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Also check out the reconstruction efforts and the millions of wasted money.

We went in without a plan and still have no plan.

Carol, the ghost of Zarqawi is smiling up at you.

Darryl,

Ignore neocon. If it is true only the good die young, he will be around for at least two hundred years.

Carol,

Only someone in complete and utter denial would think things are going well in Iraq. Even before the US invaded that country and made a bigger mess of things, all was not well. They have been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years. It was totally arrogant and foolish of Bush to think HE could improve the situation there by bombing them.

We will never see economic recovery in the US from this fiasco in our lifetime. What saddens me is neither will my children. No matter who wins in 2008, it will take decades and dedicated people to repair the damage that has been done by Bush. He truly is a shining example of the Peter Principle.

not true, Carol. there was a plan, and the plant was called Chalabi.

The problem was there was no plan "B" - what if the Iraqi people rejected a politician who for over a decade was paid by the US Governement hundreds of thousands of dollars every month - think he might be precieved as a croney? How could that be? {:-)

What if the Iraqi people's first act of freedom was to revenge years of economic oppression throught looting? What if nobody stopped them - apparently sanctioning lawlessness.

What if the world's Super Power couldn't (or wouldn't) secure the 10 mile road to the airport?

What if three years in, the world's Super Power couldn't provide improved electrical, water or sewer, services, get oil production back to pre-invasion levels? Maybe that makes them not really all that Super.

What if the world's vision of fairness and justice was shattered by jerky teenagers, sic'ing dogs on naked prisoners, prisoners that were mostly innocent except for being guilty of crime of being Iraqi? Maybe that makes them not really all that Super, fair, or just.

No Plan "B" is the issue.
No deep thought at the Whitehouse is the issue.
No military experience in the Whitehouse is the issue.
The Secretary of State who's military experience was diss'd, and was then mislead if not lied to prior to his UN presentation is the issue.
A replacement Secretary of State, without military experience, who's background is in defunct Soviet Politics.
A two party system united only in excluding any third party.
A second party that's historically disfunctional and disorganized - arguably by design.
A Whitehouse that's REALLY Good at devisive politics, holding on the a slime majority though these devisive politics.
A slime majority that can't see though these devisive politics.

"I have nothing to "man up" to. No apologies. The wsj has their opinion, I have mine. "

See, the funny part is that your opinion is demonstrably false, yet you keep it anyway. That's what makes you the loveable scamp we adore so much.

Let's discuss your "opinion".

Argument #1 against you from the WSJ: The figure for Iraq, then, is not the "violent death rate"; it is only the rate of violent death from war. (The equivalent figure for the other countries and cities presumably would be zero.) To arrive at a "violent death rate" for Iraq, we would to add in the civil homicide rate.

Therefore, any statistical correlation between the two entities as noted by your buddy Mr. King is invalid, and you are wrong.

Ready for Argument #2? Or do you want to engage in a little name calling or ad hominems before we continue?

YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN...

Neo's Strategy:

If you can't argue intelligently, take a nap.

Seems like you're right, JDR. But hey, reading is hard.

I find it interesting and telling that folks like Neo will throw a very misleading statement around, but not argue its merits.

It's like they know they're wrong, but still spew the same garbage.

Come on, Neo: can you tell me why I, and the WSJ are wrong? You're the one that brought it up!

Put up or shut up!

Wish I could take a nap.....

"It's like they know they're wrong, but still spew the same garbage."

That's EXACTLY it.

I don't have the link here - but a couple weeks ago I was checking out the O'Reily site, cause he apparently stated "Democrats want America to fail in Iraq" (paraphrased). Well I found him saying exactly that, and as "proof" he offered a couple video clips from prominant anti-war folks.

The prominant anti-war folks were saying something like "We need to rethink things ... ", but none stated anything even close to "Democrats want America to fail in Iraq" - but O-Reily said it, and most listening to American's Fastest Growing New (and the most reliable - and btw I have a bridge to sell ya too) - must not be able to figure it out.

so yea .. they know they're wrong. They spew known garbage, and folks eat it up. I find it incredible - but 70% of Americans can't even get through High School, so that explains a lot.

Yaaawwwwnnnn,
I think I will take a nap. That will accomplish more than reading the 'man up' mantra and npr links.

.... uhhh sleepy man, the link would be from America's Favorite -- FOX News.

" I think I will take a nap."

Probably for the best, as you sure can't back up what you say, much less argue coherently.

And that's funny, because you can't even hold your own against a broken record citing the oh-so-unbelievable LAMEstream media. Then again, you know you can't ever win, so why even bother, eh? Trying, much like reading, is hard.

Anybody else want to take a shot at proving Neo's contention against the harsh light of logic?

not me, babe.

Simpsons reference: I bet Neo's a viking when he sleeps.

Fill me in on the Simpson joke, Denzien

Ralph: Miss Hoover, my worm went in my mouth then I ate it, can I have a new one?

Miss Hoover: No, Ralph, there aren't any more. Just try to sleep while the other children are learning.

Ralph: Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a Viking!

You'll remember Ralph as the lovingly slow son of Chief Wiggum, and cohort of Lisa.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

You two seem to worked up quiet a bit by someone who "cannot back up what they say"... what's the big deal? Why give any credence at all to an "illiterate oaf"? As the world traveler is so apt at pointing out- the bit dog howls loudest. (and longest)

My kids outgrew the Simpsons years ago. Nice to know they are more mature and polite that the liberals who post here. Do you guys play house?

You two are focusing on what the wsj opinion page says. The fact remains that Iraq is not the slaughterhouse that the lamestream media portrays it to be. They (the lsm) are downplaying the death of Zarqawi because he was the best hope their democrats had of regaining their power. Now all they have is OBL and he is hunkered down in a cave somewhere. Perhaps he will release some nerve gas before the elections and give the democrats a boost in the polls. Anything is possible. Don't give up hope. Notice how quick cRockefeller was to point out that the car bombings were continuing after it was learned that their hero had eat a couple of 500lb. bombs. "Never mind the death of him"!! "Look at what this car bomb did"!!! Reminded me of the wizzard of oz - "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN"!! LOOK AT WHAT THIS CAR BOMB DID TO THE INNOCENT IRAQIS !!!.....

Pathetic...
GOD help us if your choice of candidates are given the power to make decisions regarding the security of this country. Given their power back, the first order of business will be to start the appeasement process and surrender to the likes Zarqawi.

Oh, one more thing Denzein, since you feel the need to insult and claim the high ground when it comes to intelligence, I will quote what a fair minded poster reminded us of a day or so ago: Those who crow about how intelligent and smart they are usually are neither.

Here's your FOX Link, Neo - Mr. Quarter-Truther O'Reily talking about Liberals "... rooting for America to lose in Iraq":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198862,00.html

"The failing Air America Radio Network is also rooting for America to lose in Iraq. Here's what Jerry Springer and Randi Rhodes said today."

"JERRY SPRINGER, AIR AMERICA: We never should have gone in from day one. Now — and I understand tens of thousands of people have been killed because we chose to go into Iraq. That is true. We killed a hell of a lot more people just by the decision to go into Iraq than ever died at the hands of Zarqawi."

ME AGAIN - It's certainly true lots of Iraqi's are dead. We can discuss if they would be dead or just remain opressed had we not invaded Iraq, but where'e the part about "rooting for America to lose in Iraq" ??

BACK TO O'Reily, apparently offering more proof:

"RANDI RHODES, AIR AMERICA: Even the White House press secretary says this today at the press briefing. He says if you look at some of the Al Qaeda memos to Zarqawi, where you had direct pleas -- will you please stop beheading people, it's bad PR. Then you have to say to yourself, my god, Al Qaeda is telling Zarqawi to cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis. And yet, we haven't cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis."

WHERE'S THE PART ABOUT "rooting for America to lose in Iraq".

It seems O'Reily makes a statement, and to prove it's fact he puts up a video - whether or not the video proves O'Reily's point, or is even relevant to O'Reily's statement, seems to make little difference.

O'Reily finishes with, "Now these people believe the Bush administration and the Republicans in general are the terrorists, and America has brought the war upon itself."

... but I didn't hear anything like that. Do you?

New self-described definition for Neo: Someone who cannot back up what they say, and thinks that's not a big deal. It's like the above post for O'Reily - say what you want, present BS to back it up, and watch the money roll in. To finish your Wizard of Oz theme - "What a World".

==

The N-R said the death of Al-Zarqawi was mostly symbolic, the original LTE said it was more than that.

I had been reading the news about the major car bombing - and put the link there to show that while the death of Al-Zarqawi was good news (I later reaffirmend that intent) - and that his dearg may have been more than symbolic, the fat lady ain't sung yet.

I have said repeatedly I want out of this mess that we should never have created, that however we leave Iraq won't look like the Bushies planned - 'cause they're not very deep thinkers and didn't plan much, that we'll be decades and generations trying to clear the wake. Frankly that's about all I ever say, except I will work hard against these self-righteous asses remaining in power.

You can spin this anyway you want, but you're a waste of time.

" Pathetic..."

That's exactly the opposite of what I thought when I read your post.

I thought to myself, Wow, what a tapdancer. He managed to write about 100 words or so and never address the questions asked of him. That's quite a talent.

Of course, not as good a talent as being able to discuss what you've cited as true and back it up, but a talent nonetheless. Much like spitting into the air and then catching it on the way back down.

Oh, and as for intelligence, I make no such claim. I only claim that you're wrong. And I can prove it. But that's no show of geniune intelligence- my 5th grader could appropriately show where your logic fails.

So, you ready to back up what you've contended, that Iraq is safer than DC?

cRockefeller, you seem willing to "waste a lot of time" on someone who is a waste of time. Apparently I struck a nerve with the terrorist/liberal connection. I'm not surprised. This is not the first time this has happened. The rhetoric you and like minded liberals spew about these 'not very deep thinkers' is right up the terrorists' alley.

For someone to be a "not so deep thinker", consider this: Bush has been elected president of the US twice. What have you done lately beside spew hate for him and those who have been more successful in life than you???(rich people) What does your resume contain that trumps his? A good blogger with unlimited left wing links you offer as "proof" of your worldview? All this "not so deep thinker" has at his disposal is the power of various government intelligence agencies. What do you have? Wikipedia? Randi Rhodes? Diane Rehm? Gimme a bruckin' fake dude. You and the other 'useful idiots' here can harp all day long about 'supporting the troops', but what you're really supporting is the propaganda war that the terrorists are waging against us. I know this is a hard pill to swallow... the truth often is.

I Haven't saw O'reily maybe 6-7 times in the last year. He's kinda like you, big on vocabulary, lacking on substance, and doesn't impress me much.

Don't worry, your flock (the other useful idiots) will chime in here shortly to stop the vein from popping out on your forehead and stroke your ego by telling you don't listen to that mean old idiot, neocon but, deep down you know there is truth in what I say. Admitting it to yourself takes the backbone I think is lacking in you.

Denzein, in the words of Sweet Pea: "Cannot you read to comprehension"? You are using someone's opinion in the wsj as "proof".

I will take my chances in Iraq with the GIs there anytime over a walk down a street in DC after dark.

Also Denzein, a word of advice: you are starting to sound like that useful idiot, Demented Deacon. Get a new line.

"You are using someone's opinion in the wsj as "proof"."

And you refuse to argue to the contrary.

Ergo: You. Got. Nothing.

Tell me again about statisical representations of populations, and how the snapshot taken of the whole of Iraq versus DC is an apt comparison.

Next, you can tell me how many folks died in DC " I will take my chances in Iraq with the GIs there anytime over a walk down a street in DC after dark."

With the GIs there? Too much of a coward to walk down Baghdad's streets after dark, even after such bravado? Color me not surprised.

"Too much of a coward to walk down the streets of Baghdad after dark"?

Big words when all you have you face is a keyboard, sonny.

" Big words when all you have you face is a keyboard, sonny."

And all you have to do is face the keyboard and back up your BS partisan talking points.

Which you still have yet to do. Come on, I know you're smarter than this LAMEstream LIEberal.

Put up or shut up.

Typical.