« A back-bencher tips the GOP hand. | Main | Congress Set To Authorize "Disappearing" People »

September 28, 2006

Comments

the publicans are starting to eat their own.

william f. buckley jr. isn't buying george "macaca" allen's act at all.

.

.

So what happens if it becomes clear to enough people by '08 that Bush is losing 2 wars? The pundits will look to another militarist to save the armed forces (someone "sensible" and "principled" like McCain) but are voters going to realize where we've been gone in time to make a difference?

NIE says Iraq used for terror recruitng and dems pass 70 billion for war as long as there are no air bases. Al in Iraq responds with some back up:

"The field of jihad (holy war) can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them," he said.

Where is Dr. WMD? She was freed by the Iraqi courts. Maybe she made a deal with Plame early on? Anyway they're finally going for the bio stuff, so I guess that's good for all those WMD operations officers at CIA and Rice's WMD degree.

Al is just so nice when dems respond.........

Probably most here have already seen this at Josh Marshall's site: Bob Woodward will be on 60 Minutes Sunday promoting his new book State of Denial -- and Woodward appears to have turned on Bush in a big way. He says the state of play in Iraq is FAR worse than even the pessimistic NIE's are reporting...insurgent attacks averaging every 15 minutes. He also says Henry Kissinger is actively advising Bush and telling him to stick it out -- apparently having taken up the wingnut article of faith that we need to avoid the "mistake" of givng up on Vietnam.

If Woodward has turned, the entire Washington establishment must have turned -- he's the embodiment of it.

KidfromPhila, I have no doubt the DC insiders will attempt to sell us McCain as our savior, and a big break from the Bush past, but 1) McCain has lost alot of his prior support with lefties and true moderates for sucking up to Bush, and especially for this torture cave-in and 2) if Bush has clearly lost two wars by '08, the entire Republican party will be tarred with it. Many political analysts act as if non-incumbent elections are jump balls, but there's no historical evidence of this: Dems suffered from the unpopularity of their incumbents in 1896, 1920 and 1952, despite coming up with fresh candidates (in the '96 case, Bryan specifically repudiated Cleveland's economics, but it did no good). And does anyone think a replacement GOPer would have done any better than Hoover in '32? Elections are always about running for or against records; these foreign-policy fiascos are trouble for any GOP candidate in '08.

Yes, demtom, that crossed my mind about Woodward as well: Woodward the Weathervane?

And it's McCave.

It is a bad scene? Yes.

It was bad the first time the WTC was attacked.
Bad when the Koll was attacked.
Bad in Somalia.
Bad in Lebanon.

Bad in 911.

Bad now in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The enemy had been coming after us while we have been sitting on our hands showing compassion and studying the big picture. Each time their bonbs go off they get recruits.

Nothing new.

Terrible? Yes.
New? No.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad