We need to stop the Surge Nation: McCain, Lieberman, Reid and Clinton, who with a wink and a nod, say a "surge" (neocon-speak for increasing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq) is acceptable and necessary, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 05:39 AMAnd, no one has asked the question, what happens if the "surge" policy fails? Then what?
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 05:58 AMThe only effective surging should be between Colin Powell and McCain's rear end. Although there is a chance he might like it. Anything for the presidency!
Posted by tempus at December 19, 2006 06:03 AMJudith, then they get even 'surgeier', and send in the much-feared Wal-Mart greeters.
Posted by tempus at December 19, 2006 06:05 AM"violence spawned by al-Sadr's Mahdi Army" is trivial compared to the violence spawned by the occupation.
End the occupation, give up the imperialist designs on Iraq's oil, pay massive reparations, try the war criminals who lied us into this clusterfuck at the Hague, and let the Iraqis sort it out.
Posted by ran at December 19, 2006 06:07 AM"...refuses to deal with the violence spawned by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army..."
Why is the Left Coaster passing on Pentagon propaganda? Attacks on American forces in Iraq are largely from the Sunni based resistance that was put in place just prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Demonizing Muqtada, however despicable he may be, is not helpful as this serves the idiot's view. The one force that must be removed, the one army who's removal would finally lead to a resolving of the crisis, tortured as that will be, is the removal of US troops from Iraqi soil. The high handed and stupid notion that military action is the vehicle for constructive change will continue to be a myth put in action as long as we support the propaganda of high handed and stupid people in power.
I'll always remember fondly the time McCain was shamed by a college student.
Posted by Joseph at December 19, 2006 06:16 AMSo because Reid didn't dismiss the option outright but said he would consider it if it was part of an overall realistic plan to enable our departure he's a bad guy all of a sudden?
And hasn't it been reported that Clinton said she does not support 'the surge option'?
What do you guys expect them to say?
This isn't the fucking Olympics we're talking about pulling out of. It's a war. Regardless of who started it and for what reasons all of our government, Democratic Senators included, have an obligation to treat the issue with the gravity that it deserves. We all know what going in half cocked has led to. Pulling out in a half assed manner could be just as bad.
This shouldn't be a political football. The monumentality of Bush's fuck up in causing this is clear for all to see. I want everyone involved to work diligently to find the best possible resolution.
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 06:16 AMto a point, I agree with San Diego. All the talk of Militia, Insurgent, Al Qaeda terrorists and so forth only serves to inforce the notion that we, the US, is right and the rest wrong. No...in fact we, under Bush, invaded a nation and are occupying it, and actively constructing permanent bases in it. The Iraqis are simply fighting the invader, and, certainly, utilizing the opportunity to settle centuries old scores while they are at it. These people were not fighting until we invaded. That is the bottom line. We started it, blew up their country and have killed tens of thousands of their citizens, but Bush wants us to believe it is their fault. No.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2006 06:24 AMBush is never going to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq. He cannot withdraw unless and until something happens that can be called victory or success. Nothing like that is ever going to happen. Bush cannot and will not admit that he failed.
The ISG recommendations were the equivalent of Bush's father calling him out in public. Add to that the latest from Colin Powell. Then add to that the objections of the joint chiefs.
Bush does not care about any of that. He thinks he is right and that he is supposed to do what he thinks is right no matter what the country, his father or the military think.
I expect a catastrophe.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 19, 2006 06:29 AMHarry Reid's comments:
"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Harry Reid (D-NV) citing a time frame such as two months to three months.
The problem with this is, "two to three months" will become 18 to 24 months -- or until Bush is out of office.
Queen Hillary's remarks:
"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," said Sen. Clinton.
Broader plan? Ah, what broader plan? This type of well-hone, vague politic-speak has come to define Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Here's what the experts -- the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say about increasing or "surging" troop levels in Iraq:
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 06:31 AMT2,
Bush will get away with blaming the Iraqis because, regardless of how this turns out, the American people are never going to hold anyone but the Iraqis and the amorphous "them" of the Islamic world responsible for what happened.
Americans will never hold their politicians, their own soldiers or themselves responsible for anything. (Cf. Viet Nam.)
Posted by James E. Powell at December 19, 2006 06:33 AMSo if the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in unanimous disagreement with the 'surge option' why all the hand wringing over Reid's and Clinton's comments? They both basically said that if the military brass think this could be an effective element of a larger plan to extricate our forces from Iraq then they would consider supporting it. The military brass doesn't seem to think that it's a good option. So where's the problem?
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 06:39 AMThey have no intention of leaving. They are there for the oil. What do you think the four permanent bases and the 21 acre embassy are for. Is scout permanently banned or just on suspension?
Posted by JohnT at December 19, 2006 06:44 AMThe International Crisis Group is stellar. Period. Gareth Evans and the rest of the Board as well as the analysts are simply the best in the world and if there is a chance at unifying a solution, they'd be my bet. Along those lines, now that Nancy Soderberg has left the ICG, she'd be top of my list to go back to the UN for us. Her handiwork with Ireland was excellent and she served the Clinton admin well on the Middle East.
Posted by mainsailset at December 19, 2006 06:47 AMMr.Powell "Americans will never hold their politicians, their own soldiers or themselves responsible for anything." Well, they held quite a few GOPers responsible on Nov. 7.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2006 06:51 AMJames Powell, How can the soldier be blamed? He goes where he is told, does what he is told! Some of the Generals on the other hand...
I think with bu$h'$ approval at 28% on his handling of Iraq, the people pretty much know where the blame lies. If only we can get MSM to get on board!
Posted by Seven of Six at December 19, 2006 07:21 AMIf anything can work in Iraq, it will be the return of their professional military.
Iraqi PM calls on Saddam officers to return to army
Bremer dissolved the Iraqi military forces and fired the Iraqi beauraucrats who made the society function. BuschCo took it back to the stone age. Why? Even the Iraq Study Group took it's marching orders on this one: The report calls for the United States to assist in privatizing Iraq's national oil industry.... It's about the privateers. Any amount of death, destruction and stupidity will be tolerated if there is a possibility that some vague group of wealthy people can have the money from the oil in Iraq.
Their formulae are simple. More troops = more oil money. Destroy the U.S. military = more oil money. Torture, murder, rape = more oil money. Destroy our Constitution = more oil money.
Posted by phidipides at December 19, 2006 07:24 AMAs we all know, we are "led" by a petulant, failed, mildly retarded child. He cannot lead, he cannot cannot accomplish anything---his 6 years of abject failure with every "policy" he advanced conclusively demonstrates that, doesn't it?
The "surge" nonsense (and the ISG for that matter) is advocated by those who desperately wish to keep maintaining the status quo in Iraq---Nero has gotten the region into such a crisis that (like children) the American elite now simply want to bury their heads in the sand rather than face the possibility that an American-created castastrophe may very likely engulf the world's major oil producing area. So we'll Kick the Can down the road using our peerless military force.
The "surge" will absolutely be implemented; the Dems (as Reid signalled) aren't going to stop Commander Codpiece's "Final Push Fer Victory", at least for now. It will fail, no matter how much brutality the troops are told to dish out to the various factions, because it has already been tried. And the surge will of course just make the situation that much worse as it peters out in failure. But then what? That will be the Dems "moment".
Funny how rightists acknowledge there can't be a military solution, but categorically refuse to engage in diplomacy and want "more troops" and more "crushing". Sure seems like they're advocating a "military solution" to me.
Heck of a pickle. Add in the upcoming recession and dollar crisis and the citizenry (if we had a leader) might demand a joint impeachment. This is going to develop into a real, blazing inferno of a national crisis---domestic, foreign and constitutional. And our disgusting "president" will be grinning all the way through it. Heckuva Job, Georgie WPE.
Posted by euzoius at December 19, 2006 07:29 AMA surge in US forces to make Baghdad secure is such a monumentally bad idea on so many fronts, it’s hard to see how the Bushies can resist it. Apparently, the point would be to declare the Mahdi Army “hostile” so they could be attacked and killed on sight. Well, that makes sense! Of all the Shia factions fighting on the streets of Iraq, al Sadr’s forces are the most steadfastly anti-Iranian. Of course, the fact that they are also the most anti-American makes it hard for the neoclowns to make nice to them.
So the plan is, to flood an extra 15,000 to 40,000 troops into Iraq, with the bulk of them going to sweep the streets of Baghdad of the unsightly rabble who now COMPLETELY control them. That worked so well with Operation Together Forward. We added at least 3,500 combat troops to harass the insurgents in their homes, streets and police stations; wherever they hang out. Boy, the streets sure are calm now, aren’t they? I wonder how many of the Surging troops will be actual combat troops, and how many will be there to support them?
As Colon Powell recently said, these extra troops aren’t exactly fresh from the training grounds. They’ll be disgusted grunts finding their second, third or fourth tours of duty extended by at least 3-4 months and other units being given an early ticket back to the festivities, before their year of recuperation is over. One also has to wonder just what equipment they’ll be driving around town, since more than half of the rolling stock of the army is down for repairs or about to be.
Al Sadr’s militia should be able to count about 15-20,000 currently deployed, heavily armed street thugs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but much of his militia, to the extent that they actually still take orders from him, are the kind of Talibanic extremists who go around murdering barbers for cutting beards and grocers for arranging vegetables (sexually) suggestively. Fortunately, for those of us who love law and order, I would guess that at least 15% of the newly, US trained Police patrolling Baghdad, Basra and other Shia controlled cities are active Mahdi Army members. One imagines that they might take a dim view of their brothers, sisters and leaders being shot on sight in the streets of their own city. I wonder if many of them have access to the Green Zone? If Cheney declares war on al Sadr, I’m confident the number of folks willing to take up arms against the infidel invaders will easily exceed 50,000, with support from a quarter million more.
So much for the speculation that Bush will choose the “80%” solution: to back the Shia and the Kurds and screw the Sunni. This whole surge absurdism will give the Sunni insurgency a whole new lease on life. Not that they were in danger of becoming moribund any time soon. It will certainly accomplish the goal of destroying the Maliki government. The whole plan reeks so much of stupidity, incompetence and political calculation, I wonder if DICK has set the date yet?
Unfortunately, there is a crass sense in which it might make sense. Since the usurpers have no intention of ever leaving Iraq until the last drop of our oil has been extracted, catastrophic chaos and mass murder on a biblical scale may suit the War President’s Party just fine. After all, in times of crisis, luxuries like health insurance for the little people, edumacation for the proletariat and little things like food for starving school children may just have to be sacrificed. Now that this administration can’t be re-elected, at least, not the persons currently in office, who no doubt are tired and want to get back civilian life to begin raking in their hard-won loot, perhaps the draft isn’t such a toxic idea after all. At least it provides work for the great unwashed! After all, haven’t we always been at war with MiddleEastAsia?
Hillary sounds like she's been hangin' out with John Kerry too much.
Drop the pretense and say it, Hillary: the Iraq war was a mistake and I was wrong to vote to authorize it. Stop referring to "a broader plan" to increase troop levels (there ain't any broader plan, pumpkin) and then, go knock some sense into Harry Reid's thickhead.
Rest assured, if the U.S. is called upon to sacrifice another 15,000 to 30,000 troops, they're not coming home in 3 months or 18 months. It's not going to happen.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 07:47 AMOne thing I fail to understand that with 1 million army (490,000 active duty, 340,000 national guard, and 204,000 reserves)why are we so stressed to provide 30,000 more troops to Iraq? Why are the soldiers have to go back several times? Why not rotate US troops from South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc and send them to Iraq? Shouldn't they share the Iraq duty equally?
Posted by suresh at December 19, 2006 08:31 AMphidipides, from the get go I believe this whole fiasco was even called O.I.L.. No doubt created by some Orwellian Bushco speech writer who told the masses it meant Operation Iraqi Liberation....but wink wink...this invasion and occupation really stood for only one thing to these power mad and money grubbing morally bankrupt war profiteers that hijacked and now lead this country. I mean comeon...Unka Deadeye Dick already had maps and plans in place to divide the spOILS of this war long ago when he met with his Secret Energy Task Force.
Plus also notice how there is never any mention lately about those permanent bases we're building...wonder why? Which enterprising reporter is going to be asking the administration about how that is going these days?
Posted by emal at December 19, 2006 08:40 AMOne thing I fail to understand that with 1 million army (490,000 active duty, 340,000 national guard, and 204,000 reserves)why are we so stressed to provide 30,000 more troops to Iraq?
Because Bush, Cheney, Rice, 99% of the GOPers in the Congress, as well as Reid, Lieberman and Hillary, are terrified history will hang a Vietnam around their necks, defining their legacy for all time.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 08:41 AMsuresh,
Over 1 million US soldiers and Marines have now rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan. A very large percentage of our active duty forces have served at least one, if not multiple tours in Iraq/Afghanistan. And many of our Reserves and NG members have done the same. Pulling troops from places like North Korea nad Japan means that we need to have forces to replace them with. We have commitments to keep certain size forces in many of these places. The troops pulled from NK can't be replaced with troops just leaving Irag/Afghanistan. Those guys need to return home to rest and retrain.
It's not just 130,000 who are in Iraq/Afghanistan. A much larger percentage of our active and reserve forces have been rotated through those theatres already. Keeping that 130,000 number steady over 4+ years requires a larger sustained active force than we currently have.
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 08:59 AMJohnT, let's hope scout never returns - he's not welcome here.
Christopher, it's bad enough that the 'pukes and the media demonize our side, tho since Lieberman's no longer a dem, trash him at your leisure. But really, you're only helping cause dissent on our side by constantly badmouthing Reid and Hillary. Let the dipshit pundits misinterpret what our guys are saying. Right now, everything's talk until congress is back in session. Give our team a chance to do something, then trash them if they don't do anything.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2006 09:02 AMYou know, I don't have much use for Powell, but he could become the Anti-McCain if he wanted to offer the Republicans a choice--and a head-on challenge to Obama or Clinton.
Posted by suds at December 19, 2006 09:35 AMHillary deserves every bit of criticism that she gets. She earned it.
Posted by Julie at December 19, 2006 10:11 AMNews reports saying the Pentagon (i.e. Cheney/Bush) has ordered a build-up of naval forces in the Persian Gulf to counter recent Iranian activities and their part in fighting the American invaders in Iraq. Sounds like an attempt to goad Iran into a fight. Maybe that's why Bush wants another 30k troops in Iraq? Unfortunately, he'll need more like 300k troops if he plans on invading Iran.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2006 10:12 AMThe military has been undermining its own rules on how to rotate troops for a couple of years now, just to maintain the current 140K (or thereabouts).
140K is about a third of the active (non-reserve) military, so to keep it in Iraq for four years means that just about every available body would have cycled through over the course of three years or so, if troops were purely fungible. They aren't fungible, so as snark notes, lots of troops have cycled through there more than once.
To add another 30 or 40 effectively guarantees a broken military (it's already quite a high probability) if it doesn't pay off big within a relatively short span of time (say, six months or so). Thus, the unanimous opposition of the Joint Chiefs: they think it might--maybe, if we have a plan, or get crazy lucky--work out, but if it doesn't, the Army and Marines are toast.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 10:18 AMyou're only helping cause dissent on our side by constantly badmouthing Reid and Hillary
iamcoyote,
Really?
OK, so explain to everyone why you think it's a good idea to give Reid and Hillary a 'pass.'
Surely, not just because they're Democrats?
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 10:25 AMFor the record, I will continue to use my voice against any Democrat who enables Bush to continue his immoral and illegal war in Iraq.
No exceptions.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 10:27 AMFor the record, I will continue to use my voice against any Democrat who enables Bush to continue his immoral and illegal war in Iraq.
Yes, that's what we need to be doing now: shrinking the big tent.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 10:31 AMNow they want to send a few more carriers and surface ships into the Persian Gulf for some gunboat diplomacy.
The Persian Gulf is home to thousands of effective, modern anti-ship munitions, carefully hidden along the entire eastern shore. When all hell breaks loose as it appears it will soon, those munitions will simply overwhelm the defenses of the whole fleet. Likely, many ships will be sent to the bottom.
How in the hell are the idiots going to account for the destruction of a major part of the U.S. Fleet?
Posted by Nobody at December 19, 2006 10:49 AMDisarray in action: Bush: we're winning; Powell: we're losing; Gates: we're neither winning nor losing; Snow: I'm not going to answer that any more. Which is it for them? In the face of this, and November's election results, and the continuing polls, sounds like the Joint Chiefs have finally figured out it is OK to get their backs up. Hope they hold on.
Charles
Posted by charles moore at December 19, 2006 10:50 AMI bet that if we took a poll here, we'd find that most of us knew from the beginning that going into Iraq was the worst possible choice in dealing with the results of 9/11. If we knew that it was all a pack of lies without the inside information that Hillary of all people must surely have had at the time, then how do you explain her vote in support of invading Iraq? She's not a naive person. I think it's pretty clear that she made a very calculated POLITICAL decision, not based on common sense or ethics, to go with the flow without a squeak. Time after time she has failed to take the opportunities that were given to her to take the time to ask some very pointed questions, to do the homework to study proposed legislation that is put in front of her. I'm thinking of the quick pass given to the Patriot Act and more recently to the Gates nomination as examples.
She is either lazy, is gullible and not very intelligent, lacks common sense, or is too ambitious. Take your pick, because it is a pattern that is repeated over and over again, and didn't stop with the vote to invade Iraq. It's time to get rid of the chaff, find some real leadership instead of politicalship. I'm tired of having to hold my nose to vote for a Dem.
Posted by Julie at December 19, 2006 11:06 AMI think we should withhold the criticism until Hillary is found in an awkward situation with a WH intern! There are so many Repigs to roast, and so little time…
Posted by tempus at December 19, 2006 11:08 AMLook, w/r/t to Hillary, it's really simple: if I'm voting in a Democratic primary, there is no way in Hell she gets my vote. If she somehow makes it through the Democratic primaries, there's no way any of us should vote in a way that would allow another GOP presidency, whether it's voting Green, Libertarian or Socialist. No matter how angry Hillary makes us (and she certainly does), the stakes are too high to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 11:11 AM...then how do you explain her vote in support of invading Iraq?
didn't stop with the vote to invade Iraq.
What she and everyone else voted on was a resolution putting the use of military force against Iraq at the president's disgression. She did not cast a vote 'in support of invading Iraq'. And she certainly did not 'vote to invade Iraq'.
Giving the president that authority was useful in the effort to get Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN. Clinton and others should not be pilloried because they chose not to tie the presidents hands in the face of a confrontation with a hostile foreign power. Bush's abuse of the trust placed in him is the crime here. Not what Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or anyone else who voted for the authorization to use force did.
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 11:19 AMbecause they chose not to tie the presidents hands in the face of a confrontation with a hostile foreign power.
I don't know snark.. I don't think Iraq ever confronted the US, and they most certainly have never been a foreign power. The Republican guard ran away the first time around, and they were supposed to be the bestest and brighterist. Their tanks would embarrass the Russians, and the Scud's fell apart on re-entry.
True, they couldn't tie his hands. His neck would have been a better choice. Just think how different the world would be if Gore was president. It boggles the mind...
Yes, that's what we need to be doing now: shrinking the big tent.
If you believe in the myth of the Democratic big tent, then you probably believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 11:54 AMJust think how different the world would be if Gore was president.
I think about it everyday.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 11:55 AMIf you believe in the myth of the Democratic big tent, then you probably believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
And if you disbelieve it, you must think the GOP won the election we had a few weeks ago.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 11:57 AMWell, John Kerry did try his darnedest to throw it to them!
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 12:03 PMAnd if you disbelieve it, you must think the GOP won the election we had a few weeks ago.
Another rambling, illogical response from dj moonbat. You're rapidly approaching parody territory.
I'll ask again, now focus and take a deep breath: explain to everyone, why is it appropriate to give Reid and Clinton a 'pass' for their support of escalating Bush's Iraq war?
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 12:04 PMexplain to everyone, why is it appropriate to give Reid and Clinton a 'pass' for their support of escalating Bush's Iraq war?
No--you explain how we would exact the sort of terrible retribution you seem to have in mind without also handing the GOP important electoral victories.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 12:30 PMWell, frankly there's not a whole lot of difference between Giuliani and Hillary, which might make Giuliani a brilliant Republican move--He's Hillary with a penis. Except I don't see the right wing embracing him.
Posted by Julie at December 19, 2006 01:08 PMWell, frankly there's not a whole lot of difference between Giuliani and Hillary...
It's funny: before the 2000 election, I thought the same thing of DLCish Al Gore and 'Compassionate Conservative' G-Dub. I'm pretty sure I was wrong about that.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 01:15 PMdj moonbat,
You remind me of the rock song 'Up on Cripple Creek."
The chorus goes:
Up on Cripple Creek she sends me
If I spring a leak she mends me
I don't have to speak, she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
Thank goodness most Democrats demand more of our elected lawmakers than you do. You are in the minority.
He's Hillary with a penis.
HAHAHAHA! Julie, that's precisely what my partner calls Rudy.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 01:18 PMGiuliani is a fascist who constantly used his position as Mayor of New York City to impose his views on the populus. All the while carrying on an extramarital affair that the entire city knew about.
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 01:24 PMThank goodness most Democrats demand more of our elected lawmakers than you do. You are in the minority.
Whatever. If you want to believe that punishing those who went squishy on the war is going to be the key to lasting Democratic majorities, you go on believing. Just keep pulling the lever for 'D.'
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 01:37 PMGeez, Christopher, why're you being such a dick? Everyone's answering your questions, but you're making personal attacks. Maybe you should step away from the computer when you're ragging, eh?
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2006 01:52 PMGeez iamcoyote, follow the posts and read them carefully and then see who is being a dick. On the otherhand, maybe you should butt when an exchange doesn't involve you?
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 02:18 PMSo, dick it is, then. Scroll back, honey, you'll see I was the first to call you on your Democrat bashing.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2006 02:29 PMReid and Hillary-bashing isn't Democrat bashing, it's Reid and Hillary-bashing. Stop drinking the koolaid, iamcoyote.
Meanwhile, Bush announced in WaPo he's increasing ground forces serving in Iraq -- opening up a huge increase in the numbers of troops who will surely die needlessly.
A move supported by Reid and Hillary.
Posted by Christopher at December 19, 2006 02:33 PMI'd just like to point out that there was this one really, really egregious Democrat, who went along with Bush at every turn. We punished the hell out of that guy.
His name is Lieberman. He's the Senator from Connecticut of the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' party.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 02:40 PMMeanwhile, Bush announced in WaPo he's increasing ground forces serving in Iraq...
Did he really?
Huh?
That's not how I read it.
Posted by snark at December 19, 2006 02:42 PMReid and Clinton are Democrats, Christopher; therefore, you are bashing democrats. Defending democrats as I am is not "drinking the koolaid." Do you even know what that means? You fling the phrase around like the trolls do. I certainly don't want Hillary to be the '08 candidate, but I see no reason to call her silly names and demonize her like you do daily.
And unless those troops that Bush is sending are only there to help facilitate the troop withdrawl, Reid and Clinton are not supporting it. I think you know that, too, but just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to bashing democrats.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2006 02:52 PM