The democrats have appointed lil Chuckie Schumer to try and preempt any thing good Gen. Petraeus might have to say next week about the surge by having him diss the troops and give credit to the enemy for any progress made in Iraq...

"The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, ‘We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves’. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there [US soldiers] protecting them!”

Kinda adds new meaning to "aid and abet", huh?
Pitiful.

Neo,

Quite honestly, I have to question any meaningful dialogue being created by General Petraeus' report.

Do you imagine that it will change anybody's mind? If it comes out praising the soldiers and the surge, it will be dismissed as completely written by the administration. Any criticisms will be hailed as sweet nuggets of truth and further reason to withdraw from Iraq.

On the other hand, supporters of the surge will claim that it shows Bush was right all along and any criticisms in the report will be dismissed as the media just taking a negative spin on everything.

What a mess.

At this point, I believe we should pull every single soldier out of Iraq, station them along our northern and southern border and fire on anything that dares to cross illegally.

Petraeus strikes me as a good guy, but let's face it, his job is to evaluate his strategy, his theory of war, his performance. How many negatives do you think he is going to slip in there. Sure there have been some positives but if you throw 3 billion a week at a problem some good things are going to happen.

The question his report won't answer is "will continuing the surge and staying in Iraq enhance or diminish our security?"

The answer in my mind is it diminishes our security.

~

"So why do right-wing pundits such as Cal Thomas keep trying to turn this war into a referendum on the Democrats?"

Because:

1. They have screwed us royally and have no other ideas except knee jerk defensive drivel.

2. They know that the public does not support Bush, so they TRY to shift blame to Dems.

3. In Cal's case, he is 'follically challenged' and his combover makes him want to blame someone for his lot in life!

4. They believe "idiots" like neocon will keep carrying water for the GOP as long as they wrap it in the flag, say a prayer, and bash some Gay people. (except the bathroom pervs of their party) LOL!

~

TLC, #4 brought a chuckle and smile to me!

nit, good points noted.

Rufus, I like what you posted. How many of us would like to write up our own "job performance?" Would be be honest and forthright? Or, would we gloss over anything that was questionable? That is the dilemma with this "report!"

Shalom

"Do you imagine it will change anybody's mind?"...

NP, from a recent Zogby Interactive Survey on what Americans say about Iraq - 8/17/07 - 8/20/2007:

"The poll shows 54% of Americans said the war is not lost."
("The war is not lost"...bad news for the democrats)

It is this 54% that that worries the democrats and they are targeting them with their preemptive doom and gloom rhetoric. ("Don't believe anything Petraeus says...whatever he says") With nearly 100% of the democrats in DC already declaring victory for the enemy, how does this square with the 54% of Americans who think Iraq is not a lost cause? This could cause a slight problem at the ballot box next year, no? And if Petraeus' report has some good things to say about the surge this will only encourage the 54%, no?

Thus: Any good news out of Iraq = bad news for the democrats.

~

Funny how ol' neocrank gleans one tiny bit of pablum from an "interactive" poll, but fails to list the others contained! He is quite the comedian, presenting opinion as "Fact".

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment.
Here's the link to it!!!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

I love that guy--he's so stupid that he doesn't know...that he DOESN'T know!!!

~

So a question for you my little puppy: In light of all this massive support, why doesn't dirty harry and the wide eyed queen act on this impeachment and '9/11 probe'?

Oh, that's right! They don't want to put the country through what the republicans put the country through...No wait...they don't have enough time! Yeah, that's it...They don't have enough time!!! Now I remember. LOL

Still no serious rebuttals for the fact that a good Petraeus report sucks for the democrats.

BTW, heard part of the new democrati...er OBL tape today.
He's pissed at the democrats for not ending "Bush's war". This dude sounds just like a blogger on the Koz or a 'Code Pink' babe. LOL

"So a question for you my little puppy: In light of all this massive support, why doesn't dirty harry and the wide eyed queen act on this impeachment and '9/11 probe'?"

Neo,

Why do you think Larry Craig would work with Harry Reid to impeach Bush? That would seriously impact his cruzin' time.

~

neo,
Face it. You are the laughing stock of this blog. If Bush sh_ts, you can't wait to smell it, wallow in it, and smear it on you. When you cannot make sense of things, you just throw rocks at the majority of God fearing, Patriotic Americans who no longer "buy in" to Bush's war.
To you, 3 in 4 Americans just rejoice in the maimed, the limbless, and mentally afflicted soldiers who return from a lost cause. If you would only remove yourself from the anus of George W. Bush and the stall of Larry Craig, you'd see that there is a great big world awaiting you! People are fed up with the lies they have been told--yes, the lies that make the fib about getting blown by an intern pale in comparison. You are the perfect receptacle for the trash you pontificate. You are a sponge of the right, and you are so brainwashed that you couldn't tell your own arse from a peep hole in a Minneapolis, Minnesota Men's room stall!
Your remarks about the Democrats are about as ridiculous as the nonsense that Bush exhorted in Australia...calling the Australian troops "Austrians" and the APEC Summit the "OPEC Summit". Are you a substance abuser or are you just that stupid?
From now on:
1. Give us some facts to back up your drivel.
2. Quit citing opinion as "Fact".
3. Consider the possibility that it is you who is out of step and not the majority of Americans who oppose the war and the Bush Presidency.

~

Rufus,
You're not 'my little puppy' that follows me around nippin' at my heels, begging for attention. But anyway...'Larry Craig'? What does that have to do with anything?
I have respect for you Rufus, but you need to guard against taking up the slack for THE LIBERAL CANADIAN...he/she will taint your reputation. Just scan over the montage listed below to see how desperate and pissed off he/she gets when he cannot answer a question or offer any substance.
****************************************************

"If Bush sh_ts, you can't wait to smell it, wallow in it, and smear it on you"...
"If you would only remove yourself from the anus of George W. Bush and the stall of Larry Craig"...
"People are fed up with the lies they have been told"...
"You are the perfect receptacle for the trash you pontificate"...
"you couldn't tell your own arse from a peep hole in a Minneapolis, Minnesota Men's room stall"...

The mother of all rebuttals as to why Good news from Petraeus = terrible news for the defeatocrats. Now, after that concise explanation from THE LIBERAL CANADIAN, I understand perfectly why good news out of Iraq dosen't spell disaster for the defeatocrats.
************smirk**********

~

Poor little neo. I suppose, like Steve Arnold, he's a "victim".

LOL!

~

~

Poor little neo. I suppose, like Steve Arnold, he's a "victim".

LOL!

~

"Poor little neo. I suppose, like Steve Arnold, he's a "victim".

NOW it's abundantly clear why good news from Petraeus isn't necessarily bad news for the defeatocrats...I'm like Steve Arnold. Shoulda thought of that long ago.
Now perhaps the democrats' spokes...ahem... 'man', Chuckie Schumer, can go on Chris Mathews and vow all does not hinge on the Petraeus report because, after all, 'neo is like Steve Arnold'...brilliant.

Yo papa needs to demand a refund from WF...

neocon:

I expect that there have been more serious rebuttals to your ridiculous proposal, but given your tendency to reduce all discussion (and anyone with whom you disagree) to infantile name-calling, I have little doubt you've missed the concrete or subtle comments. This topic is complex enough that no one - not even you - can engage in any meaningful conversation if you insist on closing your mind and your ears while you shout "unpatriotic!" and "you support the terrorists!" louder and louder.

Good news out of Iraq would only be a "disaster" for the Democrats because of the immediate spin and manipulation by the Republicans. (Note that the ever-dwindling number of war supporters have managed to use both sides to bolster the case for further involvement in this endless conflict: More troops killed means that we must keep the military there to fight the terrorists/insurgents (native Iraqis)...countered by: Success in one province of Iraq (regardless of its cause or source) validates the surge and reinforces the (false) notion that we should continue, even increase our troop levels there.

Note that Bush chose to go to Anbar Province on his latest trip - a region that has, unlike the fortified Green Zone, shown a reduction in violence. (Bush chose to avoid the place where the surge concentrated, because of its ineffectiveness.) Note also that the facts and statistics show that much of the success in this region comes from cooperation of previously uncooperative factions - not solely because of more military troops on the ground. A political solution not a military one - as so many have pointed out again and again.

But note how this has already been spun beyond fact by the conservative pundits and supporters of the war - the success in this region is proof positive that the surge is working and that we must stay the course (despite the fact that the course we're on was criticized by Dick Cheney when he was Defense Secretary...) Such a report also ignores the fact that in many regions in Iraq, smaller numbers of deaths due to Sunni/Shiite in-fighting comes largely because the stronger groups have killed off or run off the majority of their enemies. But note how quickly the administration runs those numbers up the flag pole as evidence of the fact that we are, as Bush said this week, "Kicking Ass" in Iraq. (I thought we were supposed to be bringing freedom and liberty there - not kicking asses around the country.)

A few further comments:

Petraeus' credibility plummeted when he published an op-ed piece right before the 2004 elections. It's quite unprecedented for a serving military officer of such high rank to insert himself into the political arena at such a critical juncture, and it weakens any argument that he (or the administration) might put forth that his assessment is objective and non-partisan.

How ironic that staff members from the non-Partisan Government Accountability Office felt it necessary to leak their report prior to its official release, in order to get the facts of the report in the hands of the public before it was revised and edited by the administration - which indeed it was.

Note that other reports have found the surge to be ineffective and that the course of events in Iraq have been assessed by other agencies to be on the wrong track, not the "we're winning" (What does that mean, by the way?) track. And even more importantly, note how Bush dismisses out of hand all of these negative assessments as the work of pessimists and therefore invalid. In his mind, we're doing the right thing, and despite any facts to the contrary, that is all that counts.

Numbers of troop deaths and injuries, as well as the numbers of civilian deaths are all at higher levels than before the surge. Note how no one in the administration acknowledges this fact.

In conclusion - if you've bothered to read this far - I think your incessant argument for some rebuttal to your childish notion (fed, no doubt by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch) that success in Iraq is a disaster for the Democrats is just a smoke screen for the more vital questions.

Where is the concrete evidence of success in this war or the surge? Partially meeting 3 (or 7, if you count as Bush does) of 18 benchmarks does not constitute success by anyone's measure except that of this president.

If this war were really the keystone to our efforts in the War on Terror, and if it were such a crucial part of our entire national security and success, why is it not part of the national budget submitted to Congress by Bush? Why does he insist on keeping it as a supplemental - thus insulating him from further scrutiny with regards to the economic drain the war is having on our economy? (Treating the war budget as a supplemental prevents including its cost in the calculation of the national debt - and gives the administration the ability to paint a false picture of reducing budget deficits.) This game of financial slight of hand severely hampers our national security. If it's a national priority, make it so by including it in the annual military budget and stop trying to slip it through as a supplemental (and using it as a partisan wedge issue).

With all due respect, Mr. Neocon, I paraphrase Mr. Shakespeare: Methinks he doth protest too much!

Neo,

I'll go for the cheap laugh over substance every time.

The cheaper the better.

YF,

I agree with your analysis.

It doesn't matter that much what Patraeus says to me. I expect & hope he says it's going great. In the long or short term I don't know what that means. Tactically we may win this war in some form or fashion but it is a Pyrrhic victory. Osama couldn't have dreamed that the sacrifice of 19 foot soldiers would end up costing us by at least one estimate 2 trillion dollars, thousands of soldiers, immense credibility and respect around the world.

Osama was lucky that George Bush was in the White House. Bush panicked. There's no other way to phrase it. Instead of building coalitions to fight the terror threat he tee'd off on his daddy's enemy who was uninvolved in this conflict, alienated our natural allies and lost the initiative against al Quaeda.

Yankeefan, After I was asked for some 'good news out of Iraq' I posted a link to an article last week written by a reporter embedded with the troops and is seeing first hand what is going on over there. It was his assessment that *quote* "The surge could not be going better where I am" *unquote*
With all due respect, I'll take the word from someone who is there over the talking points straight out of the democratic handbook, Keith Olbermann, and Chuckie Schumer.

General Petraeus hasn't even spoken yet, and the democrats are stumbling all over themselves to discredit what he may say. Wonder why? They are Americans too, no? A report by a high ranking military official that things are not going the way of the terrorists would be welcome news for any American, no?

No. It would not be welcome news for the democrats. They are heavily invested in failure in Iraq. A victory for America and a functioning democracy in Iraq spells political disaster for the democrats.
As for Limbaugh, Fox news, etc. The same can be said about MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and the rest of the lamestream media who serve as liberal mouthpieces to the democratic party. I was decrying the liberal media long before Limbaugh and Murdoch was ever heard of. But it's par for the course for you liberals to paint anyone who refuses to worship at the alter of liberalism as kooks who have been brainwashed by the likes of Limbaugh. I rarely listen to him. Too loud where I work.

One more point, Yankeefan. Your chiding me for "infantile name-calling" carries no weight at all. Look back through a few threads and take a gander at what THE LIBERAL CANADIAN does on a regular basis. No comparison. The left is filled with hate and arrogance toward anyone who chooses to think for themselves and doesn't swallow their ejaculations.
I'll pay a little more attention to you when I see you admonish THE LIBERAL CANADIAN for some of his hate filled claptrap...Until then...stick it where the sun don't shine, my friend.

~

YankeeFan,
Your thoughts are right on the money and very much appreciated.

What we are seeing from the administration and its "dwindling" supporters, is the long gaze toward a handoff of the current conflict to a new President. That, in and of itself, is a sad day for our country. Johnson handled Vietnam in a similar fashion, although he was realistic in the latter days of his Presidency, something we've yet to see in Bush.
The military has been weakened by this administration, to the breaking point. The Generals and the President can talk of a long presence in Iraq, but the facts remain--we cannot afford a protracted presence. $20,000 signing bonuses for enlistment tell me all I need to know about the meeting of recruitment goals. I can only imagine what a great bite we could have taken out of terrorism, had we kept our eye on the ball following the events of 9/11. Bush held the world in the palm of his hand, and he squandered it by listening to the neoconservatives. He could instituted the draft on 9/12 and had no opposition---that's how far we've come. Some of us were hoping that he would ask for some sort of sacrifice for the war effort, but he can only think of one thing at a time, and unfortunately, that was Iraq. Afghanistan is not a "done deal" as we've moved too much of our resources into Iraq. Of course, the neocons of the world will quickly tell you that all is well in "Bushworld". Sad. Very sad for America.

You definitely sized up the little fella who calls himself "neocon". While many of us, who are self proclaimed "social liberals" listen to Rush, Hannity etc, to hear their side of things, the "neocon" will not venture far from his nest of comfort. In his small cranium, he sees nothing but red and blue, black and white, liberal and conservative, good and bad, etc. His world view is so myopic as to suggest a very troubled childhood or possibly abuse. One thing there is no doubt about, he's not going to change. Many who post here have tried to drag him into the 21st century, but he is irretractable from his 19th century world. He is very amusing though when you realize he IS serious in his warped beliefs.

He reminds me of the quote from "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" where George Clooney's character Everett claims he's the only one of the three "capable of abstract thought"! neocon is the character "Delmar" in that film--that's him to a "T"!!

~

I'm sure such a coward and rabid anti-military zealot like THE LIBERAL CANADIAN is all broken up over a 'weakened military'. This should be great news for the party whose standard bearer "loathes the military" LOL

Typical thread here with 2 or 3 libs trying to veer off the subject. That being any good news out of Iraq sucks for the democrats.
No evidence whatsoever to the contrary, just more gibberish about Larry Craig, Steve Arnold, movie characters, 'off budget', 'others have found the surge to be ineffective', yada, yada, yada...
Not one single shred of evidence to the contrary that a good report from Iraq sucks for the democrats.
*****************************************

Ya know what? I'm seeing a few new faces here and some of them are no doubt wondering "what's up with ol neo and this 'THE LIBERAL CANADIAN' moniker", but don't really want to inquire.

So... without further ado:
"Ned,
This is a great letter and I share your thoughts. As I contemplate another international trip with my family, I am even more disturbed at our standing in the world. While visiting London and France, we sewed Canadian flag patches to our backpacks---it saved us from the ire of many and we met many new friends through that act. I only wish we did not have to do that again.
Thanks again for your letter."

Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE | March 20, 2007 9:47 AM

This was in response to a LTE written by Ned Cline urging President Bush to capitulate to the terrorists and surrender posthaste.

Then a couple of days ago, he accuses Bush of "lacking stones"! LOL LOL LOL Unbuckinfelievable!

I report...you decide.

~

In addition to being intransigent, give neo an "A+" for being a total lunatic.

Yankeefan said it best, when speaking to neocon:

"I think your incessant argument for some rebuttal to your childish notion (fed, no doubt by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch) that success in Iraq is a disaster for the Democrats is just a smoke screen for the more vital questions."

That, my friends is the matrix of the argument made manifest! YF, I could not have said it better! Neo is but a dingleberry on the anus of Bush.

~

I am not a fan of the usual point-by-point rebuttals that seem to persist in these blogs, and I will likely bow out for a bit after this response. But since I've been called to account for my comments, I will respond this one time.

Neocon,

You quote one journalist reporting from one spot in Iraq and use that stronger evidence than that presented by others that the surge is working. I'm glad it's going well in some places. But basing the efficacy of an entire military operation on the view of one reporter in one region of a country the size of California is short-sighted and inaccurate. (I'd say the same about the reporter who made the opposite observation, by the way.)

You're right in stating that Petraeus has not yet testified before Congress. He has, however released portions of the report and made a report to the troops prior to returning to DC. While you complain of Democrats (while ignoring Republicans who join them) trying to discredit him before his testimony, you seem to have no problem with those who have already come out in support of his report, regardless of wheter or not they know what it might say. My point remains that he has proven himself to be unreliable in terms of his objectivity and partisan allegiance. You chose to call into question patriotic devotion of the Democratic critics.

Yes, I am an American. (My family was here when the original thirteen were just a bunch of colonies and have fought in all the biggies starting with the Revolutionary War.) Yes, I am just as much a patriotic supporter of our troops as you are. I am also realistic enough to acknowledge when our troops are on a mission that is ill-conceived, poorly planned, and on the whole, unsuccessful. My support of the troops is not diminished by stating so - nor is my citizenship or my devotion to the betterment of my fellow citizens. (Do you believe parents/spouses of deployed troops who disapprove of the war are also unpatriotic and America-haters?) My comments are based on a lot of reading, listening, and careful thought. As a citizen, but not a politician, I don't have to make use of anyone's play-book or talking points, thank you very much.

I'm not going to lower the discourse by falling for the usual whining about the mainstream media being liberal. Such opinions are cyclical and very subjective. (In the 60's and 70's the complaint was exactly the opposite - it has more to do with the people who WANT to see bias rather than the reality of the reporting, who can't tell the difference between news stories and op-ed pages, and find it easier to scapegoat rather than understand the important issues.) If you believe that the mainstream media is liberally-biased, there is nothing I or anyone else can say to change your mind.

Finally, you admonished me for not taking others to task for the juvenile name-calling. Please don't assume that I'm taking sides on this. I don't condone such disrespectful behavior from anyone, regardless of which side of the argument they might be on. (If the thread were about civil discourse, I might have criticized LC and all the others for their equally juvenile comments. LC - consider your hand slapped...)

This is the very reason that I choose to post so very infrequently. Scanning the threads on any given day shows that the majority of posts are from the very same small group of people, some of whom obviously post under different names, and the threads nearly always devolve into writers attacking each other for their opinions instead of engaging in any kind of serious dialog.

To answer your assertion about Democrats: Hatred and arrogance are not the exclusive domain of those on the left. (Let's not forget the venomous and constant attacks on anyone named Clinton. In the world of the conservatives, Clinton hating was/is acceptable, Bush hating is not. For the record, I don't hate Bush. It's tough to hate someone you don't know personally...but I can be critical of his job as President.) Again, it's easier to accuse someone or call them names than accept their right to a different perspective. (See paragraph above.)

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1352

"A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same"

OK, a good report from Petraeus will also suck for the 9% of republicans who join the 66% of the democrats invested in defeat.

BTW Yankeefan, It wasn't I who "called you to account"... I was simply pointing out how the democrats are invested in defeat and any good news out of Iraq will have a negative impact on their goals.

It's true - Neo posted some 'good news out of Iraq' .. success based on the military providing what the Iraqi people need most - things like potable water and working sewers - an article written by an embedded reporter that said the opposite of what Neo has been saying since 2003 - which is (paraphrased), "turn the Iraq sand into a sheet of glass".

So Meow has apparently flip flopped - but he'll never admit that, instead continuing his never-ending black-white / red-blue division of America.

==

btw - here's what that Main-Mast of Liberal Dogma, George Will says about "General Petraeus [who] hasn't even spoken yet ..". fwiw, I'm pretty much in line with THIS GW

George Will: Rethinking our role in Iraq
By GEORGE F. WILL

OFFICERS studying at the Army War College here in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., walk the ground at nearby Gettysburg where Pickett's men walked across an open field under fire. They wonder, how did Confederate officers get men to do that? The lesson: Men can be led to places they cannot be sent.

Today's officers lead an Army that was sent into Iraq in 2003 and by 2004 the operation became, as an officer here says, "a deployment in search of a mission." Since then, missions have multiplied. Today's is to make possible an exit strategy. Gen. David Petraeus' Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual says counterinsurgency's primary objective is to secure the civilian population rather than destroy the enemy.

This inevitably involves the military in organizing civil society, a task that demands skill sets that are scarce throughout the government and have not hitherto been, and perhaps should not be, central to military training and doctrine. Nevertheless, the War College is coming to grips with the fact that what soldiers call "nonkinetic" -- meaning nonviolent -- facets of their profession are, in Iraq, perhaps 80 percent of their profession.

For soldiers, the tempo of change, technological as well as intellectual (and technological change is a driver of intellectual change), is accelerating. For centuries, nations assumed that they could be seriously threatened only by other nations; that terrorism was a weapon of the weak and therefore a weak weapon; that wars are won by large decisive battles.

America's Weinberger-Powell doctrine of the 1980s seemed vindicated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm: Force should be used as a last resort, overwhelmingly and on behalf of clearly defined objectives. That doctrine was jettisoned in 2003, when forces less than one-third the size of those deployed in 1991 for the modest objective of liberating Kuwait were sent into Iraq to implement grandiose nation-building and democracy-implanting objectives.

Today, those who believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was well-named and wise also believe that Petraeus' surge is succeeding and that criticism of Iraq's dysfunctional government is primarily a ploy by war critics to distract attention from that success. Petraeus, however, says his mission is to buy time for political reconciliation to occur. The recent National Intelligence Estimate said that although the surge is producing real if uneven security improvements, progress toward political reconciliation has been negligible and might be perishable. Hence the surge is a tactical success disconnected from the strategic objective it is supposed to serve.

Americans awaiting a report from the studious Petraeus should know that, as Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, War College commandant, says, Petraeus' intellectual qualifications (a Princeton Ph.D.) "are remarkable but not anomalous." The officers currently here -- 71 percent have served in Iraq, 34 percent in Afghanistan, many in both -- are doing something their civilian leaders did negligently five years ago -- thinking.

They think America needs, in the words of one officer, "an expeditionary capacity other than military." Officers here especially admire the introduction to the University of Chicago's edition of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual. Written by Sarah Sewall of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, it says:

We see in Iraq "military doctrine attempting to fill a civilian vacuum."

In counterinsurgency, "nonmilitary capacity is the exit strategy," which is problematic when "more people play in Army bands than serve in the U.S. foreign service." Counterinsurgency "relies upon nonkinetic activities like providing electricity, jobs, and a functioning judicial system. ...

But U.S. civilian capacity has proved wholly inadequate in Afghanistan and Iraq." The military is "in a quandary about the limits of its role" as it is forced "to assume the roles of mayor, trash collector and public works employer." The Army has, and must have, a "can do" attitude. One of the things it must be able to do, however, is speak truth to America's civilian leaders about what it cannot do. "That," says one "can do" officer here, "goes against our military culture." But another participant in a freewheeling discussion stresses the importance of "communicating risks to our civilian masters."

One certainty is that America's enemies understand what kind of war -- protracted and inconclusive -- saps America's patience. An officer fresh from Afghanistan notes a Taliban axiom: "Americans have the watches but we have the time." Some officers here recently visited Appomattox to help them think about "war termination."

Fortunately, thanks to the services' institutions such as the War College, America's remarkably reflective military services, their burdens promiscuously multiplied by civilians down the road in Washington, are up to another challenge that civilians have devolved to them: Thinking.

George Will is a columnist for Newsweek in Washington, D.C., and a commentator for ABC News.

George Will is a columnist for Newsweek in Washington, D.C., a commentator for ABC News, and a Cut and Run Defeatocrat.

~

James,
Don't forget that neo'c "proof" was merely a soldier, a member of the military establishment, and NOT an embedded journalist/reporter from a news organization. His proof would have been more acceptable/palatable if it had been an embed from FoxNewsChannel than from another "Jeff Gannon" plant from the adminstration. I'll go back and look--who knows it could have been Armstrong Williams in disguise! The point being, the news is not news when it is bought and paid for.

YF, you remain right on point. Thanks!

I will give you some advice that you will soon learn--carrying on a conversation with neocon is like arguing with a mentally retarded adult. No matter how many valid points you make, he is intransigent in his own "reality".

But, for the rest of us, please keep posting and positing your thoughts.

sources that have shaped my "reality":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20659806/site/newsweek/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeff_Gannon

:)
~

"In this latest online poll, 27% give President Bush a positive rating on his handling of the war in Iraq, up slightly from 24% who gave the president favorable marks in July. While the President's approval for his handling of the war showed slight gains, ****Congress remains stuck at just a 3% positive rating for its handling of the war****, unchanged from polling last month. Congress faces overwhelming dissatisfaction among Democrats - 95% give Congress negative ratings for handling the war, compared to 94% who felt that way in July."
****************************************
Democrats were successful in selling American voters on the idea that they had a "Plan" for victory in Iraq prior to the last election. Voters were snookered into believing that Democrats had learned to do something they haven't done in 60 years, fight to win. Now it seems that the voters realize that they have been sold a dry milk cow as this 3% positive rating reflects. The last thing they need out of Iraq is good news.

~

How many ways can neo say the same thing?

Evidently, he's still chasing his tail,
as he's posted yet another cut and paste "opinion" to further his age old argument of

Democrat = BAD
Republican = GOOD

If only the problems of the world were as "simple" as neocons mind.

Joe Biden told exactly why Congress would not cut off funds for the troops--because there is already enough money for Bush to keep the war going, but the up armor of vehicles and the production of "Cougars" would be halted, thus endangering the troops who are already there. While there is very little good news coming out of Iraq, we will have to wait until our President can "hand off" the war to a new leader who can actually "lead".

For those of you who would like to view the interview with Biden, it will re-air tonight and can be brought up now at the following link:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=b596c08a-0ce1-4b0b-be06-a8ac3226a0cc&p=Source_Meet%20the%20Press&t=c26&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&fg=

or entire show:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks

Enjoy! It totally refutes neo's laughable posts.

~

http://www.comics.com/webmail/ViewStrip?key=56124244-c66a768cca-FF

"Democrats were successful in selling American voters on the idea that they had a "Plan" for victory in Iraq ... "

I hear that a lot, but am never shown more than an opinion. Is there a chance that some voted Blue to get out of Iraq and other voted Blue for other reasons .. ?

"Democrats had learned to do something they haven't done in 60 years, fight to win." See Above (5:54 post).

" ... 3% positive rating ..." Let's see .. the Congress is split pretty close to 50/50 - so that means 3% positive rating for Blues, plus a 3% positive rating for the Reds. I think those few American voters that actually pull levers are just fed up period - color be dammed.

Feel free to tell me I'm full of Poop, Neo.

~

neo's too busy "buying into" every word that comes out of General Betrayus in the hearings today.

WE'RE WINNING!! WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ!

ANBAR IS SAFE! WE ARE WINNING!

DEMOCRATS ARE DEFEATOCRATS!

WE'RE WINNING!

IF YOU OPPOSE BUSH THEN YOU HATE

AMERICA!

WE ARE WINNING! PRAISE NEOCON! WE ARE

WINNING IN IRAQ!

Okay, so maybe that will satisfy that mental midget for a moment while the rest of us continue to live in the "real world" and he lives in BUSHWORLD.

Hope some of you caught John Dean on the Diane Rheem show today. He made excellent points that are lost on the "conservatives" of today. Go back online and listen to the replay. It is worth it!

~

~

James,
Great cartoon--too close to the truth on many points and reminds me of neocon on others.

`