Gay Patriot Header Image

The Wholly Unserious and Very Superficial Democrats

While my Athena was sparing in her criticism of the president today, she saved her toughest words for the behavior of Congress’s new majority party. Fearing a “power vacuum” in Washington “if the administration is, indeed, collapsing,” Peggy observes:

The Democrats of Capitol Hill will fill that one. And they seem–and seemed in their statements after the president’s speech–wholly unprepared to fill it, wholly unserious in their thoughts and approach. They seem locked into habits that no longer pertain, and absorbed by the small picture of partisan advancement at the expense of the big picture, which is that the nation is in trouble and needs their help. They are sunk in the superficial.

Just look at the Democrats’ reaction the president’s proposal for a troop “surge” in Iraq. Before he had even presented his plan to the nation, Teddy Kennedy was speaking out against it. If he had any respect for the office his brother once held, he would have at least waited until the president spoke and addressed the points he raised to show why he believed the Commander-in-Chief was wrong.

But, instead of offering serious criticism of the president’s policies, Democratic Senators have been assuming things about Administration officials and describing the plan not as it is, but as they need it to be so they can continue to make the same criticisms of the president that served them so well in the 2006 election — criticisms which, at the time, were more valid that they are today.

To show just how, in Peggy’s words, the Democrats are sunk in the superficial, let’s turn to the most celebrated unserious remarks about the new policy, those of the junior Senator from the Golden State, Barbara Boxer who doesn’t think Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice can make decisions about military given that she lacks an “immediate family” As the New York Post put it, “It’s hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate.” Exactly.

But, Mrs. Boxer has not been the only one to level absurd accusations against the Administration. New York’s Senators claim the president hasn’t offered a new plan. Senator Clinton claims, “The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course” while her senior colleague Charles Schumer calls the president’s proposal “a new surge without a new strategy.

So, instead of addressing the points the president raised, they say he’s not offering anything new so they more easily dismiss his proposal without doing the hard work of actually judging it on its merits.

Mrs. Boxer even presumes to know those from whom the Secretary of State is not seeking input: “So from where I sit, Madam Secretary, you are not listening to the American people, you are not listening to the military, you are not listening to the bipartisan voices from the Senate, you are not listening to the Iraq Study Group.”

The President and his advisors made a number of mistakes in Iraq in 2006. They underestimated the resilience of the militias and terrorist groups in the wake of the elections in 2005. He should have shifted his strategy sometime last year. But, now he has proposed a new strategy, one which merits serious consideration.

Democrats have contended that one reason we weren’t winning in Iraq was that with a Republican Congress, the Administration did not have adequate oversight. Now that we have a Democratic Congress, with Democrats in a position to offer that oversight, they would rather make juvenile assumptions and engage in partisan sniping than take seriously their constitutional responsibilities. This is not the stuff of which a serious governing party is made.

Share

75 Comments

  1. I just find the irony in Boxer’s comments so utterly amusing.

    A die-hard liberal feminist from San Francisco – the ground zero of “tolerance” and “diversity” – personally attacks a single, childless, minority female’s private life. Yet the same feminist defended a sexual predator in the White House, saying that you couldn’t question his private life.

    Immediate censure and resignation for Boxer now. And have the Governator either appoint himself or Bob Dornan as a replacement.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 12, 2007 @ 5:35 pm - January 12, 2007

  2. the surge is a bad idea. the democrats say so. 70% of th country agrees with them.

    Bush has fallen flat on his face and it’s HIS problem. hahaha

    no sorry no more troops. better luck next time loser

    Comment by lester — January 12, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - January 12, 2007

  3. [The commenter has been repeatedly banned for his inflammatory language and refusal to adhere to the community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by monty — January 12, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - January 12, 2007

  4. the surge is a bad idea. the democrats say so. 70% of th country agrees with them.

    Bush has fallen flat on his face and it’s HIS problem. hahaha

    no sorry no more troops. better luck next time loser

    Mr. Gay Patriot:

    I’m impressed. Unlike Owen Glendower (who could only assert the power to call spirits from the vasty deep), you have the actual ability to summon the cognitively unwashed from the daybeds in their parents’ basements.

    Comment by G. Weightman — January 12, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - January 12, 2007

  5. Here’s what Boxer said about Secretary of State Rice:

    ” Who pays the price [for Bush’s incompetence in Iraq]? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young,” Boxer said. “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

    I don’t see how this is an insult to Condi Rice. Unless people assume that being told you don’t have kids is an automatic insult.

    If we’re going to complain about Democrats, this bothers me a lot more:

    http://365gay.com/Newscon07/01/011207ford.htm

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2007 @ 8:30 pm - January 12, 2007

  6. Be aware that lester indicated on the record that he hopes for American military efforts in Iraq to be defeated. Click here to see where and how he said it, yesterday.

    ——– But now, what I came to say ——————

    Boxer, Clinton, Shumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror?

    If so – What?

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - January 12, 2007

  7. (fyi: President Bush has a plan, which I summarized for lester yesterday with links; click here if interested)

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 8:57 pm - January 12, 2007

  8. How does one fix a souffle that has deflated??

    Spoken like a true windbag.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2007 @ 9:18 pm - January 12, 2007

  9. Oh but there are more troops going and the mission is to seek & destroy the enemy and their supply routes as well as to ensure the cleared areas are not overtaken by terrorist again. That strategy (though not new) should have been better executed years ago.

    This surge of troops also challenges the Iranians and Syrians as they thought that the “cut & run” Democrats would have made the President a lame duck battling investigation after investigation until they reached their goal of impeachment. That may still come, but not before they slit their own throats exaggerating flaws in the United States Policy.

    The President has turned the tables on the turncoat Dems & RINOs and the Axis of Evil members and major combat operations should resume soon.

    This surge is way overdue and with new commanders and more troops the military can achieve the victory and turn this place back over to the Iraqi government. I not only support this surge, but if necessary we need to expand the battle to wherever those supply routes take us.

    No doubt, the Iraqi Military and Government must step up also.

    It is going to be a bloody, tough fight and with the Mainstream News Media and the Democrats wanting the President to lose, it will be even tougher.

    Those of us who believe in defending our homeland and supporting the Iraqi people to achieve the freedom they voted for must become active to counter the Axis of Evil states as well as those who are cheering for our country to lose this battle.

    Make no mistake, those who were wounded or who died in this fight are warriors who deserve the utmost respect for their sacrifice. They are not just a number that the anti-war crowd proudly displays to try to show how right they are, it only shows their ignorance.

    I look forward to the 2008 elections and am honestly glad the Democrats have taken over the house and senate so they can show who they truly support in the fight against Islamofasism. Their winning should serve as a wake-up call to true conservatives.

    Thanks Nancy, Harry, JFKerry, Teddy, Hillary and Joe Biden. All you ladies are true leaders of your party, but not true leaders to the American people.

    Comment by Ed of Tampa — January 12, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - January 12, 2007

  10. Carl, it’s not that it’s an insult. It’s that it’s irrelevant. And assumes that someone without children can’t make responsible decisions involving our military.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 12, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - January 12, 2007

  11. The sad thing is that in the days since the Democrats have actually taken power, I have yet to hear a coherent plan from any “responsible leader” of the Left that didn’t start-out as a critique or a surrender. While I’m officially disillusioned about the Bush-Chaney-Rumsfeld-Rice “plan”; I still haven’t abandoned hope that Gen Petraeus and some ruthless rules of engagement might pull this out from the standpoint of history 10, 20 years from now.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 12, 2007 @ 10:41 pm - January 12, 2007

  12. Time For Leadership on NC budget
    By North Carolina State Senator Fred Smith

    During the 2006 election, many candidates for office faced questions from voters about the increasing size of North Carolina state government. Questions about the fiscal responsibility of the Easley Administration and Democratic legislative leaders are timely. The past ten years, General Fund spending has grown 24% faster than combined inflation and population growth – translating into a $1,116 increase in real dollars for a typical North Carolina family.(1)

    State government spending continues to be out of control with a projected $500 Million revenue shortfall in 2007. The most recent state budget increased spending 9.7%, on top of an 8% increase last year. The failure of the Democratic legislature and Governor Easley to prioritize and control spending has resulted in millions of dollars of inefficient expenditures – instead of worthwhile investments like educating our children or building and maintaining roads. Ultimately, this careless, undisciplined spending has also forced North Carolina to impose on its citizens the highest tax burden in the southeast. Meanwhile, the local tax burden is also increasing.(2) Irresponsible year-after-year increases in spending strain family budgets, stifle private sector growth and damage the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs.

    Even Lt. Gov. Perdue, one of the most liberal Democratic officeholders in our state’s history, seems to recognize the problem. She recently penned an email to supporters touting her hot new “reform” idea: a permanent state efficiency commission. The commission, she says, would “present a maximum of ten separate governmental efficiency proposals” to “counter the pressures in the system favoring wasteful spending and loopholes.”(3)

    Taken as a stand-alone plan, her proposal is not a bad idea. However, Perdue’s latest press release misses the larger point. The failure to control spending isn’t for lack of boards, commissions, or processes – it’s for lack of leadership. The governor already has the power to appoint advisors or seek outside counsel on fiscal issues – or any other state problem. The governor has the veto power on the budget. He controls the Office of State Budget and Management. He has the bully pulpit.

    On the campaign trail in 2004, Gov. Easley’s “solution” to the spending problem was a self-enforced spending cap. During the 2005-2006 General Assembly, Easley promptly broke that pledge by signing two budgets that blew through his own cap. Now, Perdue has the magic bullet: her permanent efficiency commission. She says the group will create the “institutional momentum” needed to fight spending. Why add a new commission to the over four hundred boards and commissions already in existence, rather than just rolling up our sleeves and tackling the spending problem? Real leaders take excuses off the table, use the tools they have and get the job done.

    Some skeptics may look at Perdue’s record and fear that her efficiency commission proposal is just political lip service. She can prove the skeptics wrong though by signing on to support the constitutional amendment I have introduced to cap state spending growth.

    Our rapidly growing, rapidly changing state doesn’t have time for bureaucratic piddling with new processes. Instead of tinkering with the system, we must make real change which requires leadership. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment limits government spending growth to inflation and population growth. This legislation would immediately put real limits on government growth, finally forcing the legislature to prioritize spending.

    Talking about fiscal restraint, finding government efficiencies, and getting tough on spending is a lot like talking about going on a diet. There are a lot of gimmicks and new fads, but we all know there’s only one real solution: discipline. We don’t need a new “fad” plan, we just need a leader with the discipline to make sure government eats less and exercises more. A constitutional spending cap would force government to create a strategic plan for growth, prioritizing what we consume and cutting outmoded, irrelevant spending.

    We don’t need a new blue ribbon commission. We don’t need to pass the buck. We need results – and that takes disciplined leaders who will roll up their sleeves and make tough decisions. At the end of the day, improving government efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending reduces the demand that government places on the private sector, so the private sector can create jobs and economic growth.

    (1) “The State Budget.” John Locke Foundation: http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/statebudget.html
    (2) Lowrey, Michael. “By the Numbers: What Government Costs in North Carolina Cities and Counties.” The Center for Local Innovation. http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/btn2006.pdf
    (3) Perdue News Update, December 29, 2006.
     

    Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 12, 2007 @ 11:14 pm - January 12, 2007

  13. #5, #10 – No, GPW and Carl – It’s not just irrelevant; it IS an insult. It is a variation of the “chickenhawk slur”.

    Boxer is openly suggesting that, because of the sole fact that Rice doesn’t have a child or grandchild in the military, Rice is not qualified to defend the Administration from (or to rebut) Democratic criticisms about its direction of the military.

    Boxer includes herself in the remark as a cowardly formality – to give herself a fig leaf with defenders like Carl – since, of course, Boxer has zero intention in the first place of defending the Administration from (or rebutting) Democratic criticisms about its direction of the military.

    Imagine if their positions were reversed. Imagine if Rice tried to tell Boxer (which she never would) that, since Boxer has no immediate familiy in the military, Boxer is not qualified to opine on the Administration’s direction of the military. The logic would have precisely equal validity. (That is, no validity in my view; but some validity, apparently, in Carl’s?) But imagine the howls of outrage from the liberal media; nothing but a pound of Rice’s flesh would settle it.

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 11:38 pm - January 12, 2007

  14. monty, I know how to fix it. I’ll tell you, if you can first give a positive answer to a question of mine. Did you get that ban on you lifted? by apologizing to GPW and GP for your past disgraceful actions around here?

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 11:41 pm - January 12, 2007

  15. As an Iranian, I am glad that an American government is finally confronting Iran. I am not advocating attacking Iran, but Americans should attack Iranian interests in Iraq. How much more freedom should we allow them in Iraq? how much more proof do we need that Iran IS involved in Iraq? We are finally seeing some real activities from Bush administration regarding Iran, Their recent move to block the most prominent Iranian banks are just the right move and I am glad to see EU is kind of behind it.
    Wake up America! Iran had declared war against America 26 years ago when Khomeini came to the picture and people started chanting “Death to america”…Iran fears power and no country has so far shown any real power against Iran. Clinton administration’s policy was to keep apologizing for the past mistake until Iran begins to love us. That did not happen. Senior Bush did nothing and Carter thought Khomeini was “Gandhi” like (read Carters biography)…so far America has not act like a super power. I hope they are finally doing it.

    Comment by Frieda — January 12, 2007 @ 11:43 pm - January 12, 2007

  16. -Imagine if their positions were reversed.-

    If their positions were reversed, the GOP wouldn’t say a word against Rice.

    What Boxer said was that Rice doesn’t pay the same price that those with loved ones in Iraq are paying. And that’s true. The many who defend and praise this war, without ever being over there themselves, without knowing anyone who has been injured or died over there, are on a different level than those who have suffered this loss.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2007 @ 11:53 pm - January 12, 2007

  17. Mary Katherine Ham shows how much the Democrats of this week disagree with the Democrats of a few months ago, over Iraq: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/89f94cf1-dd1a-4a37-8299-a1d72866e8fd

    It sure isn’t looking like they have a plan!

    But I really want to know. I want to leave no stone unturned. So please permit me to ask again:

    Boxer, Clinton, Shumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror?

    If so – What?

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 12:07 am - January 13, 2007

  18. Matt, over at The Malcontent, has a great post on this subject.

    Comment by John in IL — January 13, 2007 @ 12:22 am - January 13, 2007

  19. Another thing that bugs me about Babs Boxer (sounds like the name of a drag queen, don’t it?) is her statement that “I’m not going to pay a personal price” for the war effort.

    So in other words, it’s not her problem. She could care less about American troop safety or success. She’d rather be a champagne socialist on all the A-list cocktail parties than be bothered with a war.

    Selfishness, thy name is liberalism.

    Censure Boxer NOW.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2007 @ 12:36 am - January 13, 2007

  20. Censure Barbara Boxer for saying Rice is unmarried and has no children?

    I think that the media and conservatives who are so outraged about this somehow imply Rice is weak, or that there’s something wrong with her being single and childless, something that needs to be defended.

    I’ve seen conservative politicians who have routinely attacked their opponents for being childless, going farther than Boxer did. A female state legislator in Arizona, Colette Rosati, said this about her opponent and also implied he might be gay.

    http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0109sr-insider09Z8.html

    I don’t remember any outrage from the right over this.

    Meanwhile, the Malcontent is upset about a slur against women, yet calls Boxer a “harpie”. Yeah.

    Comment by Carl — January 13, 2007 @ 12:48 am - January 13, 2007

  21. #5
    If we’re going to complain about Democrats, this bothers me a lot more:

    I’m confrused. I thought all libs LOVE gays. Who’s this A$s clown?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2007 @ 1:31 am - January 13, 2007

  22. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska, who told Condoleezza Rice today that escalating the conflict represents “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out;” Yet no criticism of Chuck he has the magical shield of the “R” after his name.

    Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon, who calls the president’s policy absurd and possibly criminal; and Smith again – “This is the President’s Hail Mary pass,” said U.S. Senator Gordon H. Smith (R-OR) said tonight reacting to President Bush’s new plan for Iraq.

    “Iraqis need to be their own street cops, not U.S. forces,” Senator Smith said, “This is the President’s Hail Mary pass. Now it is up to the Iraqi Army to catch the ball. We are extending an ineffective tactic to further the status quo. Iraqis must be the ones to settle their own peace.” , but its OK for Smith to practice free speech he’s a conservative.

    Republican Prez candidate Sam Brownback of Kansas, who wants to partition Iraq and says the US “should not increase its involvement” until Sunnis and Shiites stop shooting at each other. Sam done gone and made up his mind to be a loser appeaser, but thats OK cause he basks in the golden light of conservatism where the magic R provides protection from Peggy the Loon and her clones.

    Comment by Jacob — January 13, 2007 @ 2:19 am - January 13, 2007

  23. laura bush made a similar remark about Rice. I hope this barbara boxer non stroy gets big. man will that pull the rug out from under the right wing bloggis. It is a great time to be a troll!

    frieda- th shah was a brutal tyrant. the exploits of the SAVAK are legendary and put most dictators in that region to shame. we should have “confronted ” him. khomenie was worse, but the shah is th one who made him look like a good alternative.

    Comment by lester — January 13, 2007 @ 10:23 am - January 13, 2007

  24. #10:

    assumes that someone without children can’t make responsible decisions involving our military.

    I disagree, Dan. Boxer made an important point: it isn’t people like Rice or Boxer or Bush or Cheney or Kennedy who are making the sacrifices for this war and occupation. It’s a very small subset of the American population: the military and the National Guard and their families. The rest of us are told to go shopping and enjoy our tax cuts. And this escalation places even more onus on the already stretched military. It all highlights a point that I have never seen explained: if we truly are engaged in an existential conflict where western civilization is at risk for the foreseeable future, why is there no national mobilization of our resources? Why is there no “Manhattan” program to wean us off the oil that is the primary reason the Middle East is so important to us?

    Comment by Ian — January 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am - January 13, 2007

  25. #22 – On the contrary, Jacob. If I haven’t criticized Hagel (or Brownback for that matter), it’s because I think he’s beneath contempt.

    #20 –

    If their positions were reversed, the GOP wouldn’t say a word against Rice.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Oh, they might not say it in exactly the same way – simply because, by definition of your hypothetical, it would be the Democrats’ job to wail the loudest. But many in the GOP would, either publicly or behind the scenes, slam the hell out of Rice if she tried to suggest that just because someone doesn’t have a child or grandchild in the military, they aren’t qualified to have an opinion on how the military is directed.

    The many who praise and defend and praise this war, without ever being over there themselves, without knowing anyone who has been injured or died over there, are on a different level than those who have suffered this loss.

    Just as I said, folks: we’re now back in “chickenhawk slur” territory. The suggestion that if you support what the troops are doing and want them to succeed in achieving American (and Iraqi) victory, you’re a suspect (if not contemptible) warmonger.

    Or perhaps we’re back to Cindy Sheehan redux: the notion that that A’s opinion will be inherently superior to B’s, provided that (1) A is connected with a story of military sacrifice; and, unspoken but more important in practice, (2) A’s opinion is one that left-liberals want to hear. Because whenever anyone who HAS lost a child in Iraq speaks out and points out the dangers of premature withdrawal, and begs us to support American victory in Iraq so their child’s death will not have been in vain, well, let’s just say liberals don’t want to hear that one.

    And now back to my question (still not answered):

    Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror?

    If so – What?

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 11:49 am - January 13, 2007

  26. calorato- no. victory is not possible in iraq therefore a “plan for victory” does not exist

    Comment by lester — January 13, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - January 13, 2007

  27. If the Democrats did have a plan, and if any of them actually had the temerity to state it, you’d promptly tell them to STFU — because the Pentagon takes its orders from the President, not the Congress.

    Anyway, the burden of proof is on the minority of people who support escalation. The American people — whose Holy Infallible Wisdom you value so highly when it comes to making decisions about same-sex marriage — don’t want it. The Iraqi people don’t want more American troops, and neither does Prime Minister Maliki.

    What’s so different about this “surge” that will ensure its success, as opposed to the previous times it’s been tried?

    And what if it doesn’t work — what then? If this is, as the President has seemed to imply, the “last chance” to bring peace to Iraq, then the surge will have achieved nothing except the deaths even more U.S. soldiers.

    By the way, withdrawal does not equal “surrender.” The main objectives of the war in Iraq — getting rid of Saddam, and leaving Iraq with a sovereign elected government — have been achieved.

    Comment by vaara — January 13, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - January 13, 2007

  28. Thank you, lester.

    Dan, I had had to come back and drop a quick comment about this:

    The President and his advisors made a number of mistakes in Iraq in 2006. They underestimated the resilience of the militias and terrorist groups in the wake of the elections in 2005.

    What they underestimated was: Iranian interference. As Michael Yon puts it (with a hat tip to Bill Roggio),

    “During 2005, I asked many American and Iraqi commanders if they were capturing Iranians. They were capturing foreigners, surely, but what about Iranians? Not a single commander, Iraqi or American, told me that his people were catching Iranians. Times have changed. Today, American commanders talk about capturing Iranians. Not rumored Iranians, but real ones; some of whom are believed to be involved in importing EFP technology into Iraq.”

    Many may not be aware of this, but in Iraq we are, in fact, at war primarily with Iran at this point.

    I greatly fault the Bush Administration for not making us a lot more aware of it, a lot sooner.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - January 13, 2007

  29. If the Democrats did have a plan, and if any of them actually had the temerity to state it, you’d promptly tell them to STFU…

    Translation: vaara can’t think of any plan the Democrats have.

    Anyone else? Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 1:01 pm - January 13, 2007

  30. why do you want such a plan?

    Comment by lester — January 13, 2007 @ 1:17 pm - January 13, 2007

  31. “Phased withdrawal,” which is what some Democrats are proposing, is a plan.

    “Victory” in Iraq, i.e. replacing Saddam with a sovereign elected government, has been achieved. Right?

    Comment by vaara — January 13, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - January 13, 2007

  32. Steve Kagen, another Democrat ‘class act.’

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm - January 13, 2007

  33. #30 – lester, because I care about American victory in Iraq.

    #31 – vaara, I meant to thank you earlier for implicitly acknowledging the tremendous progress that has been made in Iraq. As for “phased withdrawal”: what phases? on what timetable? with what expected results or effects on the people of Iraq? Thanks again.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - January 13, 2007

  34. #30 – You have got to be kidding. Your post is a joke, right?

    Sheesh.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - January 13, 2007

  35. #33: lester thinks all terrorism is the fault of the J-o-o-s, and that’s why he wants the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) of Amerikkka to be humiliated by the noble but misunderstood, forces of Islam.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - January 13, 2007

  36. See, lester thinks Global jihad is all about taking a tiny little strip of Mediterranean beach-front property, which is why Al Qaeda has bombed the US, Spain, Britain, Bali, the Phillippines, Thailand, India, and overthrown governments in Afghanistan, Somalia, and is trying to do so elsewhere, and why France, the most Arab-friendly anti-Semitic country in Europe, has 300 cars burned on a good night by Islamist youth. And if we just give Hitler the Sudeten… I mean, if we just surrender Israel to the jihadists, that will be the end of it. So thinks lester.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - January 13, 2007

  37. vaara I responded to #31 – held up I guess – stay tuned.

    Hat tipping Captain Ed, here is an example of an objection to the President’s plan for Iraq by a guy who, gasp, really wants American to win the war with Islamo-fascism: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008915.php

    But I notice even this guy doesn’t have much in the way of alternate suggestions.

    I think President Bush’s plan essentially attempts a deal with Maliki: We will temporarily give you X amount of extra support, if you finally starting reining in the Iran-driven militias – or allow us to. I fault Bush’s plan for not (apparently) tackling the Iranian evil more directly.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 3:02 pm - January 13, 2007

  38. FYI, I’d like to quote what was said on SondraK’s blog in response to Babs Boxer’s obnoxious remarks, but Bruce would be well within his rights to delete it and ban me, so, I’ll just link to it and say, right on, right on.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - January 13, 2007

  39. #38 – Right on, V da K.

    Feminists like Barbara Boxer want it both ways. They want abortion rights, they want women to have access to the workplace, but if the woman takes that freedom, does not marry, does not have children, evidently Boxer thinks that woman is unqualified to use her education, experience and judgment in her career. Now, according to Boxer, that woman has to have children to have her career.

    Sound confusing? Sure is. It is Boxer logic that only applies to one woman: a single, conservative black woman who happens to be secretary of state.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - January 13, 2007

  40. -Just as I said, folks: we’re now back in “chickenhawk slur” territory. The suggestion that if you support what the troops are doing and want them to succeed in achieving American (and Iraqi) victory, you’re a suspect (if not contemptible) warmonger.-

    It’s interesting you jump to this very defensive conclusion, especially since Boxer included herself in the people who didn’t understand what it was like for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I guess Boxer thinks of herself as a chickenhawk?

    It’s just common sense. Those who have lost loved ones in Iraq or are in Iraq themselves feel more than those who didn’t. That’s one reason why so many in the military who once supported this war are now much more hesitant, while the people out there who have lost nothing to the war continue to blindly cheerlead.

    Comment by Carl — January 13, 2007 @ 5:20 pm - January 13, 2007

  41. Those who have lost loved ones in Iraq or are in Iraq themselves feel more than those who didn’t.

    This illustrates one of the problems with liberalism. Liberalism is all about ‘feelings.’ And ‘feelings’ are supposed to be more important than reason.

    If I needed a life-saving operation, I would choose an unfeeling doctor who was extremely good at the operation over one that was incompetent but really felt passionately about performing the surgery. A liberal, presumably, would make the opposite choice.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - January 13, 2007

  42. I think for the Democrats to be superficial in their support of the war on terrorism, you’d actually have to have a plan in the first place, no? The entire time we’ve been there, there’s never been to me some overarching concept for what exactly the role of the United States has been – what our “goals” have been. What goals have we accomplished and what goals have we not yet accomplished and when do we expect those goals to be complete. I think this is what the administration has neither been able to codify, track or communicate. I think the original idea was to “shock and awe” the Iraqis into submission and acceptance of a US influenced resolution. The administration neither comprehended the eventual resistence nor had some plan beyond our first response.

    Staying in the vein of visible female celebrities, this past week on The View, they were debating the war in Iraq and in response to something Rosie said, Elizabeth Hasslebeck said “I don’t care about [the US] being popular; I care about being safe.” Is one exclusionary of the other and frankly have we moved any closer to stemming Islamo-Fascism as you all call it on here or have we only prompted more and greater retaliation from current and future generations?

    Comment by Just A Question — January 13, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - January 13, 2007

  43. And what about all those who are in Iraq and/or who have lost loved ones in Iraq, WHO BEG US TO SUPPORT AMERICAN VICTORY IN IRAQ SO AMERICA WILL BE SAFE, AND DEATHS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN IN VAIN?

    Let’s just say left-iberals don’t want to hear from them, since they’re not convenient.

    Or, rather than leave it at that, maybe should stage public “demolition derbies” between the ones who want to wipe out our gains in Iraq and make the sacrifices in vain, and the ones like the Gold Star Mothers who don’t?

    My point: That’s where we’re headed. Because the whole claim / argument is fundamentally ridiculous.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - January 13, 2007

  44. (Or highly unworthy and irresponsible of Boxer.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - January 13, 2007

  45. #42 Actually, one more thought –

    I wasn’t gonna do this – But the truth of the matter is, I have a loved one in Iraq as we speak.

    I was trying not to say that, because by the terms of MY code, it makes no difference in who is qualified to opine about Iraq. Only truth, or the quality of logic / argument, matters.

    But Carl, by the terms of YOUR code, the fact that I have a loved one in Iraq as we speak means I am more qualified than Barbara Boxer to opine about Iraq. For YOU to be consistent with your values, you now have to admit that I am more qualified than Boxer.

    Or were you just babbling, Carl? I’m waiting.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - January 13, 2007

  46. Funny that the same libtrolls who don’t think Boxer’s pointedly explicit comment is worth a fuss are the same ones who raised holy hell over a made-up word like “macaca.”

    I guess that’s liberal logic for you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - January 13, 2007

  47. The American people have overwhelmingly said by poll, vote, letters, interviews, financial support etc. that the direction we’re going, the direction the administration is taking, is the wrong one – yet this latest announcement of a “surge” is the exact same direction. We’ve had, essentially, 8 years of Republican enabling on this issue since the 1998 Congress was installed. We’ve had a rubber stamp legislative branch to this administration’s war efforts and we’re no further along than before. Any allies we once had have abandoned us. Any political capital we once had was spent. Any vision we may have had has now proven to be sentimental and short-sighted. Any future of less violence rather than more from our current “plan” in the Middle East is a mirage.

    The past performance and actions of a host of rampantly disingenuous and corrupt Republicans, a pathetic and failing war effort, years of special interest pocket-lining, gouging of the middle class, installation of extra-conservative judiciary, increasing debt and trade imbalance etc. are suddenly superseded by two whole weeks of Democrats being in control?

    Disingenuous Democrats indeed. I think Republicans who are unestimably more the example of such behavior and their supporters need to relearn the what the word disingenuous really means.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 13, 2007 @ 7:37 pm - January 13, 2007

  48. Um, Just a Question, you’re not addressing the president’s proposal, merely providing tired rhetoric.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 13, 2007 @ 8:30 pm - January 13, 2007

  49. The American people have overwhelmingly said by poll, vote, letters, interviews, financial support etc. that the direction we’re going, the direction the administration is taking, is the wrong one – yet this latest announcement of a “surge” is the exact same direction.

    That is because, unlike the American people, the Bush administration is not constrained by a leftist media that prohibits any discussion of Ba’athist Iraq as anything other than a kite-flying paradise.

    What we want from you and your fellow leftist Democrats, JAQ, is simply to stand up and say this:

    “We believe that the fact that Saddam arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered millions of people on the basis of their religious beliefs, ethnicity, or political dissent, destroying their homes, their families, and entire regions, was an acceptable tradeoff for peace”.

    Better yet, I want you to add this: “We were aware of the fact that Germany, France, Russia, China, and other countries Saddam held billions of dollars in lucrative oil and commercial contracts with Saddam that would be erased by his removal; furthermore, we knew that UN diplomats in charge of overseeing him and preventing abuses by him were receiving enormous sums of cash and credits from him, which our elimination of him would end. But we still should listen to them and do exactly what they say, because they’re our allies, and if we acted against Saddam, we would lose face with them.”

    That would be telling the truth, but you’ll never do it.

    Why?

    Because you know “the American people” would react very differently if they had the whole picture of Saddam’s brutality and other countries’ connivance in enabling it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2007 @ 10:15 pm - January 13, 2007

  50. In my opinion president Bush will go down as one of the, if not THE worst and incompetent president in US history. He has not only put American soldiers in harms way, but American people. By his ignorance he has empowered the Iranian dictator, and Syrian politics in the region.
    If you have seen, Iranian President met today with Venezuelan president. This reminds me of a situation we had with Russian/Cuban missile crisis. Only one problem – Russians were not suicidal. I can’t say the same for this situation.

    This incompetent president [Bush] has spread our military very thin in a region of war with NO end-in-sight. Bush has put this country in a way greater risk of a terrorist attack then before 9/11.

    But at the end it doesn’t matter. There is such think called “Karma” — what comes around goes around.

    Comment by Henry — January 13, 2007 @ 11:21 pm - January 13, 2007

  51. I don’t know what bush will go down in history as or that there will still be a world left to record such things as history.

    4 years is more than enough time to give Bush in Iraq. While we certainly didn’t support him and criticized him as much if not more than the rest of the world, we didn’t stop him from sending troops or take away his ability to make decisions in any way. he couldn’t do it.

    Now we have to take the reigns away. forget WMD, sunni and shia and all thes rest. it’s over and we lost. the era of the US in the middle east is over. we will continue to buy oil from whoever is over there. nothing in our lives will change. but the writing is on the wall. the world doens’t want our leadership. one way or another, we will be sent packing. and for this I am glad

    Comment by lester — January 14, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - January 14, 2007

  52. Carl, it’s not that it’s an insult. It’s that it’s irrelevant. And assumes that someone without children can’t make responsible decisions involving our military.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 12, 2007 @ 9:32 pm – January 12, 2007

    GPW – you are twisting Boxer’s words – she said that both she, and Rice didn’t personally have family members who were paying the price for the President’s policy. She did not say that Rice being single meant she shouldn’t be making these decisions.

    I don’t think much of Boxer, but I think this is way overblown – and I think people are misrepresenting her comments. She said nothing about single women shouldn’t be in positions of power.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 14, 2007 @ 1:08 pm - January 14, 2007

  53. “Democrats have contended that one reason we weren’t winning in Iraq was that with a Republican Congress, the Administration did not have adequate oversight.”

    Excuse me? Many democrates have voiced the opinion that it was a mistake to go there in the first place, even those who voted in favor of it now regret it. (by the way, Osama Bin Laden still free, 5 years, 4 months and 3 days since 9/11/01).

    I think you’re smug attitudes come more from the fact that we are in a very difficult, un-winnable, domestic civil war and George & company have mis-calculated on all fronts as to what to do. The American people are now very clear that we want out of this nasty mess and the administration still has no idea. Let’s face it…the plan to get a foothold for oil production…er…democracy in the middle east is a failure.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - January 14, 2007

  54. “the administration still has no idea”

    Actually, they do. It’s called “attacking Iran.”

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Comment by vaara — January 14, 2007 @ 7:03 pm - January 14, 2007

  55. The incompetancy of the administration is in underestimating the resolve of the generations-long hatred of the United States by most of the Mideast nations. It’s a complex set of decades of conflict that Republicans short-sightedly thought would be as simple as removing one dictator and letting Democracy “flower in the desert.”

    And from the dissemination of the true reasoning behind the invasion, we’ve still not had any satisfaction as to the importance and national security at risk necessitating invading a sovereign nation. Saddam was a bad guy. I think we all agree about that. But there are still dozens out there as bad as he or worse that represent either less strategic gain or more difficult confrontation. Iraq was a supposed easy target to Neocon Republicans that has turned out, as Tony Snow might say, a bit of a tarbaby. If our course of action is so correct, where are our allies? They either refused to join us in the effort in the first place or have quickly vacated as soon as any formal obligation is over. Yet the neocon-Bush war not only continues but escalates. Why should any rational person support that? Why should Democrats, now in their majority, allow some sort of a grace period to Republicans for a conflict so ill-conceived and so poorly carried out in their minority?

    How many times and in how many ways can the people tell the Administration that enough is enough? Why does the President and his coterie think themselves so much more enlightened about this issue?

    Patience has ceased to be a virtue.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 14, 2007 @ 10:22 pm - January 14, 2007

  56. If our course of action is so correct, where are our allies? They either refused to join us in the effort in the first place or have quickly vacated as soon as any formal obligation is over.

    That was because Saddam Hussein, unlike Slobodan Milosevic, made the correct deduction as to what would protect him best.

    1. Make lucrative contracts with European nationalized and partially-privatized companies, both in providing oil rights and in purchasing large amounts from them — all of which would be invalidated if he was overthrown.

    2. Buy billions of dollars in weapons from Russia on credit — thus creating debts that would be virtually uncollectible if he was deposed.

    3. Provide enormous sums to UN bureaucrats responsible for overseeing your actions — thereby cutting off a major source of income, on the order of millions of dollars, for these individuals.

    In short, Saddam Hussein made certain that his removal would cost the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the UN literally billions of dollars. Given that, they had ample incentive to leave him alone — and, in order to cover up the fact that they were doing it for purely-financial reasons, they chose to stoke anti-Americanism as a reason for doing it. Furthermore, they knew that Democrats, as so obviously exemplified by the Clinton administration, would do whatever they said.

    They didn’t count on an American President who was independent enough to decide that pleasing them wasn’t worth it.

    Saddam was many times the genocidal maniac that Slobodan was. But Slobodan didn’t owe that many Europeans money and didn’t pay off that many UN diplomats. That’s the crucial difference that allowed Saddam to starve, imprison, torture, and murder literally millions of people without Europe, Russia, China, and the UN raising a finger — and in fact, doing their level best to sabotage any effort to remove or restrain him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 15, 2007 @ 1:20 am - January 15, 2007

  57. What allies? Let’s look. Let’s separate the wheat from the chaff. Russia is out for itself. France and Germany are out for themselves. China is out for itself. Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Iran are out for themselves. If you think they should be our allies, like it’s the year 1945 or something, boy are you naive. Our allies are Britain, Australia, and to a lesser extent Italy, Poland and other East European countries, Japan and India. And in one form or another, all of our real allies are with us in the War on Terror, and most of them with us in Iraq.

    And JAQ, when will you understand that the people elected Bush as their President in 2004? And that doesn’t go away, just because the opposition party happened to do well in a Congressional election? How many times, and in how many ways, do the people have to tell you Bush is President?

    On other topics:

    – 30+ hours since #45, and no sign of Carl. I guess Carl really was babbling.

    – 35+ hours since #33, and no sign of vaara answering it. I guess vaara was babbling. (about Democrats allegedly having a plan for Iraq)

    – Other comments above: so very long on disproven Left shibboleths and the tired rhetoric of Left hatred; all too short on affirmative, positive ideas for what America can do next to succeed. I ask again:

    Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 2:01 am - January 15, 2007

  58. Oh, and also belonging to the list of our true allies, who are with us: Israel.

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 2:01 am - January 15, 2007

  59. -But Carl, by the terms of YOUR code, the fact that I have a loved one in Iraq as we speak means I am more qualified than Barbara Boxer to opine about Iraq. For YOU to be consistent with your values, you now have to admit that I am more qualified than Boxer.-

    Sure, I’ll admit that. Boxer herself basically said the same thing. You are more qualified than Boxer or Condi Rice.

    BTW, although it may make you feel more important to think that I was somehow afraid to answer your question, I didn’t get around to checking the thread until tonight. I hope that makes you feel better.

    Comment by Carl — January 15, 2007 @ 7:48 am - January 15, 2007

  60. You are more qualified than Boxer or Condi Rice.

    Amazing. Thank you, Carl.

    Now Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - January 15, 2007

  61. If you’re going to insist on details, you should start by explaining what exactly you mean by American VICTORY in Iraq. What would American VICTORY look like? How would Iraq be different after a declaration of American VICTORY? How will Bush’s new plan help to ensure American VICTORY when previous attempts have failed?

    (See? I can do the “broken rec-rec-rec-record” thing too.

    Comment by vaara — January 15, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - January 15, 2007

  62. Translation: vaara still doesn’t have a plan.

    Additionally, vaara you either can’t or don’t want to “read before playing”. I already answered the questions you pose in #61. I answered them in #7 – from the first sentence of the link provided.

    In case you have CTS and are scroll-challenged, here is the link again: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2008#comment-316332

    Also, here are the questions I had for you in #33, that you STILL HAVE NOT tried to answer:

    As for “phased withdrawal”: what phases? on what timetable? with what expected results or effects on the people of Iraq?

    That leaves us still with my main question:

    Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

    If you want to play, please try a tad harder, OK?

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - January 15, 2007

  63. -Now Boxer, Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, f-

    Boxer has always opposed the war. She would probably prefer the troops come home. I don’t really know or care what flip floppers like Clinton or Schumer are planning.

    The problem is that one side may not have any plans, but the other side, the GOP, has said that there should be no more troops, then said there should be more troops, back and forth.

    Comment by Carl — January 15, 2007 @ 6:02 pm - January 15, 2007

  64. No Carl, that’s not the problem.

    First, troop / strategy changes proposed by the GOP are not why Iraq became difficult. Iraq became difficult in 2006 – after a hope-inspiring year in 2005, with 3 triumphant elections and the training of the first effective native armed forces and much terrorist ass kicked – because Iran jumped in to foment both Sunni and Shia death squads. Please refer back to #28, where I gave some info / links on that.

    Second, you are in effect criticizing the President for wanting to adjust his strategy as new realities become apparent. That’s just senseless.

    Let’s put it this way: If the President weren’t adjusting strategy (including troop levels) as new realities became apparent, you – and Boxer – would surely be criticizing him for that instead. Thus we arrive in the territory of criticism for its own sake.

    Third, I notice that – functionally speaking, at least – your reply to my question was to say “Boxer has always opposed the war”. In other words: Boxer has no ideas or suggestions for how American can improve the situation. Thank you for admitting that (if only by implication).

    Anyone else? Clinton, Schumer – do any of them have plans, today for where we are in 2007, for American VICTORY in Iraq? Or any other theater of the War on Terror? If so, what?

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - January 15, 2007

  65. (and remember: When al Qaeda and Iran are at war with you, regardless of whether you wanted it: Not having a plan for America’s victory, is having a plan for America’s defeat)

    Comment by Calarato — January 15, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - January 15, 2007

  66. 1. Make lucrative contracts with European nationalized and partially-privatized companies, both in providing oil rights and in purchasing large amounts from them — all of which would be invalidated if he was overthrown.

    So in deposing Hussein, we’ve nobly restored financial control of the Iraq oil reserve to the people of Iraq away from privileged contracts with European nations, right?

    Is that why the Iraqi government, in a few days, will pass a US designed law giving exclusive 30-year oil rights to the largest Western oil and gas companies with nearly no debate? It will give companies like BP, Shell and Exxon up to three quarters of that profit during the early part of this period. Even after these companies recoup their initial drilling costs, they will still be allowed to retain 20% profit which is still twice the industry average. Better us than Europe I guess, huh? And I wonder who all those top energy executives are? Surely not anyone associated with the Bush government, right?

    2. Buy billions of dollars in weapons from Russia on credit — thus creating debts that would be virtually uncollectible if he was deposed.

    And Russia has been our ally since when? Speaking of the “flowering of Democracy” when can we see that fully implemented in the former USSR? And what exactly has been the increase in military weapons funding to United States government contractors during this period?

    3. Provide enormous sums to UN bureaucrats responsible for overseeing your actions — thereby cutting off a major source of income, on the order of millions of dollars, for these individuals.

    The US was just as complicit. The Senate Permanent Subcommitte on Invetigations concluded that we looked the other way during the Oil-for-Food program because it benefitted our allies of Turkey and Jordan. In fact, it seems we actually facillitated some of those sales. For example, the Houston-based Bayoil and its CEO were both indicted for such actions.

    In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil – more than the rest of the world put together.

    This argument that the US was some white knight coming to rescue the Iraqi people from the evil clutches of Hussein – that we stood up to the greedy nations of the world – makes an inspiring, yet untruthful, story.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 15, 2007 @ 11:34 pm - January 15, 2007

  67. Is that why the Iraqi government, in a few days, will pass a US designed law giving exclusive 30-year oil rights to the largest Western oil and gas companies with nearly no debate?

    Yup. The democratically-elected government of Iraq will, as is its right, grant oil rights to the companies it chooses, with the oil proceeds to benefit both the companies doing the exploration and the Iraqi people.

    We know you preferred the previous system of a brutal dictator parceling out favors on the basis of which companies would help keep him in power and using the proceeds to benefit only himself, but trust us, this way is better.

    And Russia has been our ally since when? Speaking of the “flowering of Democracy” when can we see that fully implemented in the former USSR? And what exactly has been the increase in military weapons funding to United States government contractors during this period?

    And the relevance of any of this to the topic at hand is…..?

    And as to the last, perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that you didn’t bother to provide links to your statement, which would illuminate much farther why your Bayoil point is rather laughable; at the very least, unlike the UN and European governments, the US government prosecuted people who broke the law.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 16, 2007 @ 12:38 am - January 16, 2007

  68. “vaara still doesn’t have a plan”

    Actually, I do: Offer a U.S. Green Card to every Iraqi. Within months, the country would be virtually empty. No people, no violence! Problem solved!

    Comment by vaara — January 16, 2007 @ 2:24 am - January 16, 2007

  69. Cute, but unserious. My question still unanswered.

    Comment by Calarato — January 16, 2007 @ 10:23 am - January 16, 2007

  70. We know you preferred the previous system of a brutal dictator parceling out favors on the basis of which companies would help keep him in power and using the proceeds to benefit only himself, but trust us, this way is better.

    Who’s this “us,” Kemosabe? The neocons who engineered the invasion to ensure gas profits? You and the rest of the Republicans at the State Department who turned a blind eye to a kickback violation during the oil-for-food scandal in our own backyard?

    Was it that easy to ignore a United States vendor, Bayoil, under supervision of a United States agency, OFAC? Despite the UN asking for an inquiry twice about unusual shipments, OFAC decided to look the other way accounting for Bayoil’s contribution to the Hussein government. It’s pretty rich to cast blame to other countries and the UN when a US company was lining Hussein’s pockets to the tune of $37 million and privately sanctioned by the State Department.

    And where did the majority of this illicit oil-for-food reserve end up anyway? In the US of course. Three-quarters of this oil came our way and 52% of the total amount was being surcharged. All the cruddy crude was still finding its way to US shores and we didn’t really seem to mind then.

    And if you even cared about the reality of the situation, rather than parroting talking points, you’ll see that Hussein made far more money from oil smuggling to his neighbors, rather than kickbacks and the the US was well aware but allowed it to continue since most of this was flowing through Jordan and Turkey.

    I think it’s safe to say that had Democrats not poked around and exposed the fraud, Bayoil would probably still be operating as per usual. Do you have some news that would indicate that Republicans would have taken up the cause otherwise? A bit hypocritical of to praise the US for being law-abiding when the Republican cast of clowns wouldn’t have done anything to stop them otherwise. Does that mean you’re actually praising Democrats for being responsible and law abiding?

    Comment by Just A Question — January 16, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - January 16, 2007

  71. Actually, I do: Offer a U.S. Green Card to every Iraqi. Within months, the country would be virtually empty. No people, no violence! Problem solved!

    Why on earth would they do that?

    According to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, the United States is worse than Saddam ever was in terms of treatment of Iraqis. For what reason would they come here?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 16, 2007 @ 11:43 pm - January 16, 2007

  72. To make money, of course.

    The U.S. economy has never been healthier… right?

    Comment by vaara — January 16, 2007 @ 11:49 pm - January 16, 2007

  73. #10. Then when Bush claims–falsely–that all the parents and family members of those troops have died ask him to stay the course, please write a post telling him that their opinions do not matter.

    Comment by sean — January 17, 2007 @ 9:03 pm - January 17, 2007

  74. It’s so tiring reading the same foaming historically ignorant self-defeating piss from the left.

    They are so obtuse that they take the side of the enemy who would line them up first to kill.

    They will be the reason Offensive (ie: opposite of defensive) Jihad will be nearly impossible to defeat.

    Comment by Vince P — January 19, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - January 19, 2007

  75. Oh yeah. This is the column in which the Magic Dolphin, after writing that Democrats are “unserious and superficial,” wrote this:

    “When Nancy Pelosi showed up at the White House Wednesday to talk with the president it was obvious she’d spent a lot of time thinking about . . . what to wear. She wrapped herself in a rich red shawl. Dick Morris said it looked like a straitjacket. I thought she looked like a particularly colorful mummy.”

    That’s some serious criticism of great depth.

    Comment by JonathanG — January 20, 2007 @ 12:07 am - January 20, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.