Liam

... still waiting...

But is this what actually happened? I think it's pretty obvious that what happened is that while US soldiers where capturing ground, the US government was creating a situation that encouraged Jihadists to fill a void. In a battle for hearts and minds, possession of real estate is not an issue. Bush saw this as a battle for real estate, while it was a battle of ideas. Unfortunately, he so far hasn't even won the battle for real estate. The battle for hearts and minds is already lost to him.

Liam, if you voted for Truman, you must be around 80 years old. If you are that age and use the computer the way you do, you should be complemented. BTW, Yes Truman, the winning President at the end of WWII, and Reagan, the winning President of the Cold War. Actually, I am in my 30's. Barely, but still in my 30's.

I think people should be able to make up their own minds. I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot read or view. Of course I have seen porn. I own some and am not ashamed of that fact. I am brave enough to say that I am not ashamed of sex. (Of course I would never condone victimization in any manifestation, i.e., kids (YUCK!), torture, etc. That's just SO wrong.)

I voted for Truman. If anyone has doubts about this guy, I seriously suggest reading David McCullough's book. Amazing. Truman was a true hero -- he flew so far below the radar, was kept out of the loop on the Manhattan Project, knew almost nothing before becoming president, but was given the thankless task of accounting for US war expenses in WW2... he did not make friends. Yet he was a man of such sterling character, he inherited a war on the verge of victory (yet not quite there), he became president after a titanic figure (FDR) who had dominated the political scene during the first half of a century, and he was largely seen as a disposable man, a habberdasher, a nothing. He was the US representative at Potsdam, oversaw the Marshall Plan, initiate the defense of Korea, fired MacArthur, battled steel and coal unions, retooled the US economy from a war footing to a peaceful, prosperity-based economy. He had the strength of character to fight terrible odds, he fought for what he believed in. When it was over, it was over. He graciously exited the stage to live a quiet life back in Independence, Missouri with his wife Bess. He never again sought the spotlight, he never let his ego get the better of him. He was the epitome of the American political ideal and was amazing.

This is TOTAL B.S. Utter crap. Anyone who criticized the war in Iraq is an enemy of western ideologies?! How about this -- anyone who is either too afraid or too jingoistic to demand better of his government is nothing but a nationalist. Anyone who thinks we could not have done better is a loser. Anyone who thinks that we have not lived up to our potential is someone who accepts mediocrity. Anyone who criticicizes contsitutional rights -- like freedom of speech -- is an abettor of the forces that corrupt western ideology. How about that? Again, look in the mirror, traitor. You foolishly cling to the notion that any criticism of the way this war was waged is a criticism of western ideology. Sorry, bud, but you missed Western Civics 101: anyone who fails to force his government to do better is a traitor to western ideology. By falling subservient to whatever political force rules the country, I count you among the boot-lickers of history. You want to undermine those who seek better for our country. You are a traitor to western thought. People who think like you are perhaps better suited to nations where agreeing with the government is the ulitmate civic virtue. If so, consider your passport to North Korea, Iran and Burma pre-stamped and consider yourself cleared for customs. I await YOUR apology, traitor-to-the-west.

I've read your response on the other thread and am unmoved. You unashamedly accused me of being league with terrorists. If anything, YOU and your kind are the enemies of western thought which values individualism, the ability to be free in one's mind and in one's thoughts, the freedom to speak out (and, yes, even be wrong, but free to speak all the same), the freedom to disagree with one's government and the freedom to voice opinions that are unpopular. I am fully confident that *I* am a defender of western ideology. I wish I could say the same for you. I await a public apology.

What are you talking about. Islamic radical ideologies are supported on this very site by people like Black dog, Liam, Jerry Hatrick, jdobbin and others. Are you saying you don't read these guys post? OK, tell me where I supported radical Islamic ideologies. Come on. If you were half a man you'd stand up and show some proof. I'm waiting. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Try reading some of my posts. I was praised by someone on one of the other threads as being the *only* liberal who stood up to say that I thought there was something inherently dangerous about Islam and that I strongly felt that western society is superior to any other out there. I put those statements out there even though I feared they'd get me banned from this site as being hateful toward Muslims. (You Canadians and your speech laws are so bloody overly-sensitive.) I am not a Republican but I supported the decision to invade Iraq because I believed in the WMD claims. When it became obvious that WMDs would not be found, I thought we should have wrapped up operations and gotten our guys out of harm's way, to ramp up training of an Iraqi security force and pull back to let them do security. I am critical of my government because it failed to do adequate post-war planning which only exacerbated the problems in Iraq. Now Iraq is lost in a hopeless downward spiral all because of the inability of Bush and Rumsfeld to check their egos and (even privately) admit to screwing up. On top of that, they squandered resources that could have been to better use fighting the real terrorists and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Oh yeah, I am a big supporter of radical Islam. Now I have explained myself. Your ignorance, however, defies explanation. I am going to recommend that the administrator ban you from this site for slandering me, but I expect an apology from you first. Again, I am waiting.

The ignorance of this statement is astounding. Where did you pull that from? Because I don't fall lockstep in line with the Rush Limbaughs I am against the success of western ideologies? Get real. If anything, I'd say that the tendency of some toward nationalism and authoritarianism are antithetical to western thought. Look in the mirror. You've already banished western ideology from your own brain.

Leafless... *LOL... wait, errr... you were joking, right? Terror training camps in Ramadi or wherever were NEVER (get that? NE-VER) an argument of the Bush administration's in the period leaning up to the war. Never. Sure, they frequently and cynically conflated 9/11 and Saddam, but even up until a month ago, the closest anyone in the administration could say Saddam got to actual terrorists was that he offered money to Palentinian suicide bombers whose targets were Israeli civilians. Shitty and immoral, to be sure, but was that reason enough for the US to mobilize its entire war machine to take down Saddam? You're seriously deluding yourself. Trouble makers... cripes, do I need flashcards for you right wingers? hand puppets? 1. Rumsfeld and Bush went into war on the easy side. They wanted a small force and disregarded the troop levels needed to secure the country after Saddam fell. Rather than using an overwhelming force, they used *just enough* troops to guarantee a loss. 2. They made the fatal mistake of disbanding the Iraqi military and sending home a hundred thousand *armed* soldiers without pay and without jobs. 3. They made the second fatal mistake of unwinding the Iraqi civil service. No civil service = no civil services. Try getting your lights turned on, try getting you grandmother's social security check, try locating your bank account. 4. They made the third fatal mistake of not understanding the country they were invading and the various factions Saddam's regime kept in check. 5. They made the fourth fatal mistake of not planning for even a handful of alternative outcomes. Prior to going in, they should have planned for various alternatives, including famine and contagion, insurrection, brittle infrastructure, political instability, social unrest, civil disobedience, energy and medical shortfalls... In the three seconds it took for me (sitting in my home office) to type that, I probably gave more thought to various alternative outcomes than Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld combined. 6. Their botching of the war only emboldened Iran, the true threat to international security and energy resources in the region. 7. They filled positions in the post-war administration with political friends and big money donors who largely proved to be incompetent and disinterested in doing anything to stabilize Iraq. Most of them seemed more interested in earning their GOP bona fides so they could go back to work at K Street lobby firms and big defense contractors after their *tour of duty*. 8. They opened the money spigot to giant corporate interests (I say this as an ardent fan of capitalism, but their aim to help the private sector should NEVER have taken precendent over the national security interest of getting the war "right"). 9. They clung to a failed policy long after it became obvious to everyone that the tactics they employed were doing nothing but prolonging the need to keep boots on the ground and increasing the numbers of US and Iraqi dead. 10. They used the war and anyone's opposition as a political tool. They risked the lives of young men and women who were told they were fighting for American freedom and cynically kept them in harm's way all to serve the inflated egos of a president and Sec'y of Defense who could admit no wrong, who could not imagine how anyone could question their leadership. MIraculously, Rumsfeld's service only fell short *after* Bush suffered a setback at the polls. Ask yourself this: if he was doing well before 11/7, why isn't he still serving at the Pentagon? Most of all, they made the mistake of thinking the American public was stupid, that we would be forever forgiving of them because they represent the *right* way of thinking, that they KNOW and that we merely follow and believe. I see you still do, which tells me that you have outsourced your independence of thought to the likes of Bush and Cheney. Good luck to you.

You're saying they're false? The truth is that a major reason the current GOP lost is that that they have strayed far, far, far away from the traditional conservatism they one championed. They've now become the party of Jerry Falwell and Jack Abramoff and Teri Schiavo. How else do you explain their loss of both houses of congress to a party that never went out of its way to publicize its positions on any issues? Look, I voted D, make no mistake, but the truth is the GOP *lost* this election more than the D's *won*. They have only themselves to blame along with their mismanagement of Iraq and Katrina, their patronage, their corruption and their belief that they could do all this because they were infallible. Or do you believe the Democrats presented a better substantive alternative to the voters?

I think real conservatives were showing signs of discontent. We were looking at a GOP more interested in retaining power than in getting rid of a congressman who sends dirty IMs to teenage boys. We were looking at a GOP that bought the happiness of its corporate supporters through lucrative contracts. We were looking at a GOP that was so fiscally reckless that it doled out favors at the expense of our children and grandchildren. We were looking at a GOP more interested in scuttling constitutional rights (like habeas corpus) and more interested in fighting to become a nation that tortures rather than valuing the established rule of law. We were looking at a GOP that talked the talk of family values, yet decided to intercede and attempt to nullify a dying woman's wish to not be in a permanent vegetative state. We were looking at a GOP that when looking to fill government jobs considered party fundraising more than competence. We were looking at a GOP that was intent on tearing down the wall that keeps politics out of religion and religion out of politics. Good, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan-type conservatives could not support the Republicans this year. Cynical, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh-type conservatives could and did.

I'm sure you believe in a certain kind of America, but your belief is part myth. If you fail to consider that there are things our country can do better, you are hardly patriotic.

I can't read her. Not because I disagree with her, but because her writing style is so manically choppy. Ann, slow down on the meds, they're making you jumpy. Of course Ann Coulter has all the answers. Only she knows what's the right direction in Iraq. After all, the Bush policy we've followed all along has been a success. No need to rethink things, no need to question the Dear Leader. I have so much more respect for conservatives who have shown a capacity for intellectual curiosity, self-questioning, and thoughtful consideration of various solutions. Needless to say, Ann scores a zero on all accounts.

Uhhh, really? If we went in there to root out al-Qaeda, this is the first I've heard of it. Of course Cheney and Bush kept conflating Iraq and 9/11 -- which no one with two brain cells believed -- only to later issue "no, we never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11" statements when the press stopped rolling over for them. Did you drop off the GOP talking points email list? Rumsfeld is a smart guy, but the planning of the war and the administration of the post-war period (are we even in it?) were unmitigated disasters. Whether that was the fault of Rumsfeld or Bush will come out after the Democrats are sworn in and start poring over the files and internal memos and intelligence reports. If Iraq is the way it is because Bush went against Rumsfeld's counsel (i.e., Bush wanted a small, light force to topple Saddam), then Rumsfeld should have either done whatever was necessary to shake Bush of disillusion or resign in protest once it became obvious the war was going downhill. If Iraq is the way it is because of Rumsfeld's obstinance and ego, then he was an utter failure as Defense Secretary. Either way, Rumsfeld's legacy will be one of incompetence and dishonor. He will not be missed outside the Beltway and certainly not in the battlefields around the globe.

Not so fast. The current headcount reflects a tie 49R-49D (actually, 47D and 2I but with the two independents siding with the Democrats). Two races (VA and MT) are heading for recount and in each of those, the Dem is ahead. Both should fall into the D column soon enough giving the Dems the Senate. Regarding the House -- not one single Democrat lost in his/her re-election bid, many Rs lost theirs. Regarding governors races -- again, not one single Democrat lost his/her re-election bid and the Dems picked up six states (NY, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, and Colorado).

My revised prediction (based on the latest polls): Dems will retake the House with a net gain of around 20 seats. The GOP will hold the Senate with a two seat margin (51-49). I believe I posted this on another thread, but I think that if the Dems take the House (which they should), having Nancy Pelosi in the news for two years ahead of the 2008 election will really take away from Hillary's already limited appeal. I think the Dems will go with either a midwestern or western candidate. I think the Dems' best strategy is to move toward the southwest, thereby isolating the GOP as primarily a Southern party. On the GOP side, I can see McCain's demise in the coming years. I think the GOP candidate could be Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Haley Barbour.

No, I don't think they would vote for a liberal East Coast man, but having Nancy Pelosi in the news every day for two years will, IMO, cause white males, Southerners and self-described Christians to shy away from supporting Hillary. I'd put my money on a midwestern, southern or western governor over anyone from the East Coast. Bill Richardson would make a good candidate. Barack Obama, while intelligent and inspiring, will lose, IMO. I think massive gains by the Dems this year will slake their thirst for power and will make electing a Dem president a slightly more uphill battle in 2008 particularly since one of the big arguments in favor of a Dem takeover in Congress now is the notion that a divided government works better than single party rule.

I don't want to count votes before they're cast. but it appears that the Dems may be up above 230 (leaving the GOP with about 200 seats) in the House. It also looks like all but one (Tennessee) of the hotly contested Senate races is tipping in the Dems' favor in the last 72 hours. Usually whoever has the momentum on the Thursday before Election Day ends up winning. The Dems have the momentum. The Dems will easily pick up 4 seats (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Montana, making it 49D-51R). Of the three statistical ties (Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee, I'll give them a slightly better than 50% chance of picking up one, around a 33% chance they'll pick up 2, and about a 5% chance they'll sweep all three. If the Dems take the House, my big wager is that Hillary's aspirations get curtailed. Middle America will not elect a liberal east coast woman president while there is a liberal West coast woman as Speaker of the House. My bet is that Hillary will fade, and that Bill Richardson (New Mexico governor), John Edwards (former VP candidate) and Joe Biden (Senator from Delaware) will begin to emerge as more viable candidates than they are today. A crushing GOP loss with continued strife among evangelicals will serve McCain very well. Anything short of that increases Mitt Romney's profile. Oh, and I predict that the Dems, by the end of next week, will announce that their 2008 convention will be held in Denver, signaling a commitment of the party to increase its base in the fast-growing inland west (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, etc.).

The only question now is why Republicans hate America. I mean, isn't that what the question would be if Democrats posted this information (particularly when it was done for political purposes)? It's heartwarming to see that the GOP is now in the business of aiding and abetting terrorists in their quest for WMD. :angry:

Just as an FYI, NBC announced that it will not air commercials for the Dixie Chicks' documentary "Shut Up and Sing". http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/27/dixie-...ertisement-nbc/

FWIW, my view on our response to global warming has always been thus: what harm does it do to assume that human-influenced gloabl warming exists? Would we not be better off with fewer toxic gases in the air, with fewer miles driven on our cars, with fewer hydrofluorocarbons in our midst? Whether or not we create greenhouse gases and influence global warming, if we acted as though we did, we might actually stave it off. Worst case scenario, we'd simply live a healithier life. Not a bad alternative, if you ask me.

I suppose it depends on where you live. In some parts of the US you wouldn't even know that the Chicx had an album out. Pat yourself on the back if you live outside those areas.

Bush is, by far, THE worst president. The man has control of the executive, judicial and legislative branches, has an innumerable number of allies in the media (both old and new media) and he STILL can't convince a majority of Americans that he is anything but a TOTAL LOSER. He has utterly sold out a conservative agenda for pork barrel spending and wages battles for the retention of power for power's sake. He is not a conservative, he is not a Christian, he is far from compassionate. He is a political bamboozler and anyone who follows him is his dupe.

I love this kind of suff. It throws the left into a confused tizzy when two of your favorite pet projcets are at odds with eachother It's even better when the source is a gay website - my gosh how in heavens name can a lefty ad hominem on that one? hahahahahha Look, if you want to show your allegiance to Islamic radicals who want to kill or beat up gays, at least be a man to say it up front. Don't hide behind them like some wet-pantied little school boys.