« 24 | Main | Unsound Methods »

August 07, 2006

Comments

God, I hope they're this stupid:

Some argue the GOP would be better off if Lieberman wins, on the theory that anti-war activists would become discouraged and stay home in November

Apparently they can't think of people doing something out of principle beyond it's ability to get or maintain power. That almost makes me hope Joementum wins, because it will increase our chances in November.

You know, I am so ready to mount the intelligent arguments against the "left fringe"/dems are weak on defense/terrorism threat that the GOP is salivating at. This is not 1968, or 1972. A majority of the county, not a majority of flagburners, is against the war. What simple arithmetic do the thugs (and the main line dems)not comprehend.

What manner of cowardice would encourage the dems not to make the honest arguments that the american people are resonating with? Especially with the power of the net working effectively as a counter to the MSM -- at least at present.

What will it take for dems to stand up on hind legs? Do the poobahs think that perhaps we'll have a better chance at honesty in the 22nd century?

Here's another piece: WoT™ not a R strength like it used to be.

Confidence that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror has fallen sharply in the past month. Just 39% of Americans now hold that optimistic assessment, down from 44% a month ago. During Election 2004, the number who believed the U.S. and its allies were winning consistently remained above 50% (see crosstabs).

As war between Israel and Hezbollah escalates, the Rasmussen Reports’ monthly update finds that 33% believe the terrorists are winning. That’s up from 26% a month ago. Collectively, these numbers document one of the most pessimistic evaluations of the conflict we’ve found in the past two-and-a-half years. Not coincidentally, election 2006 polling trends have moved away from Republicans during the same time frame.

Just 31% of Americans now rate President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq as good or excellent. That’s down from 36% a month ago.

DonS, what "mainline Democrats" are you talking about? Are you stuck in a time warp from 2003, and even then ignoring the majority of House Democrats who voted against the IWR, and a sizable minority of Senate Dems, including a near-majority who are still in the Senate today? Did you miss this?

Key Democrats united on Iraq pullout
Letter to Bush calls for start of withdrawal by year's end

Monday, July 31, 2006; Posted: 10:22 p.m. EDT (02:22 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a show of election-year unity, top congressional Democrats have sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to change an "open-ended" policy on Iraq that they said has not worked.

Twelve Democrats, including the Senate and House minority leaders -- Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California -- signed the letter, which was delivered to the White House on Sunday.

The letter served to return some focus to Iraq after fighting between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrillas has dominated headlines since July 12.

"While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence," the Democrats wrote about 100 days ahead of November's midterm congressional elections.

"U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel," the letter said.

The members resurrected a plan put forward last month by Democratic Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan that called for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin by the end of this year.

Seems to me like a pretty good cross section of "mainline" Congressional Dems, including several who voted for the IWR.

Gee, I guess I threatened the orthodoxy around here or something. I take it all back. Dems of all stripes have been keeping Bush's feet to the fire.

Now tell me I'm wrong about sucking up to AIPAC too?

My profuse apologies. I guess I'll just retire from this board.

DonS,

And what would that look like? Hmmm?

DonS: If that's how you handle being challenged on the use of hyperbole, you won't be missed.

Yes, you're both right about my reaction.

However,

"U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel,"

is not my idea of where the dems need to be in going after this president. How about a resolution stating they and the country were misled and we never should have been in this position, and go from there? If the premises aren't explicitly stated, everything that follows lacks context and gravity.

Too late to get on the record for history? I don't think so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad