The surge worked, mission accomplished, so bring em home. Maybe the numbers are so good that even he does not believe them.

one thing i found noteworthy -
i asked several, including a big military supporting sister, if they’ve
been watching KEN BURNS: THE WAR on pbs…

no one had even heard of it… huh???
i’m guessing the wingers aren’t big fans of this documentary?
what else? … ’cause this film is NOT a war cheerleader…
…

‘course, it could be that righty instinctual distrust of pbs and facts…
…

Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 30, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

Yer a bit confused here, Mastabatastic…

“… Lindbergh’s political views were complex, and revealed both consistencies and inconsistencies with those of the Nazis. For instance, Lindbergh avowed a belief in American democracy. [17] However, he clearly stated elsewhere that he believed the survival of the white race was more important than the survival of democracy in Europe: “Our bond with Europe is one of race and not of political ideology,” he declared…”

As for Kennedy…

“… Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. “… Isn’t there some way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.”

Lindberg and Kennedy weren’t “appeasers”. They were “supporters”, but neither was as deep in the Nazis’ business as Prescott… ya know, George’s grandfather. Don’tcha hate it when ya make a fool of yerself like that?

BTW, what about those photos of Rummy shakin’ hands w/ Saddam? Was Rummy an “appeaser” or supporter”?

Comment by bilbobaggins — September 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

The US couldn’t control the country w/ 140,000 plus soldiers AND Lord knows how many “contractors” (160,000?). The surge (30,000) was strictly a dog-and-pony show to buy BruschCo more time. This admin is using the Army as a front for their private goon squads. Just disgusting…

that seems to be what US is —
if you read these interviews with ElBaradei and Hersh from Spiegel Online.

we are living in a scary time “thanks” to the PNAC’ers

i wonder that myself… days like today, more than ever…
i’ll be spending the afternoon with my family and all the extendeds…
most of whom are repugs… some more and worse than others…
we do not bring up politcs… maybe a rare jab, but to no depth…

i don’t know how i manage… but i’ve always been the loner,
the reclusive oddball, so they allow me my idiosyncracies…
but i don’t allow them their bigotted views in my presence…
oh, don’t worry… i know all about tact and good manners…
when needed… family is one of them…

you can tell how much i’m looking forward to this…

and, i’m gonna miss sam seder… :-[
…

It has kicked in for 70% of this country. Unfortunately due to a gutless Democratic Congress the 30% who are not shamed are allowed to dictate to the other 70%.

Wow, a Right Wing Loon finally gets it right for once. You are correct, the escalation (”surge”) could never work, at least with the number of soldiers they sent in. And Betrayus knew that before he sent the additional 30,000 soldiers into that hellhole. Betrayus is a traitor and should be tried for his crimes. He chose, because of political ambitions, to spout Bush’s lies rather than to support his troops. Practically every other General in Iraq disagrees with him (including his boss), but that didn’t matter as long as he furthered his political ambitions.

Well at least he is still on point with the Bush talking points. He blames al Qaeda for the increase in violence. Couldn’t possibly be the insurgents who want us out of their country, could it. As a matter of fact, there ARE NO real al Qaeda in Iraq. The people our government calls al Qaeda are either insurgents or foreigners who have come into Iraq to fight the Americans. It was our government that branded them “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia”. They never called themselves “al Qaeda”. They are happy to do that now that they have been branded with that name because they know that somehow we are more scared of “al Qaeda” than we are of the Iraqi’s who are fighting to make us leave their country and who are fighting their own personal Civil War.

From ‘My Cousin Vinny’, “It’s a bullshit question!”

Talk about diminished expectations.

Comment by rehbock — September 30, 2007 @ 12:28 pm

Say… that just might work… now, if we can only get Al Kaidi ta pick Rummy as their new topman…

Comment by Jane E. Schneider — September 30, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

It’s not so much a Strawman, as a… what?

Circular logic? What? Such a bizarre statement. He’s justified in attacking US because something they did didn’t work? Just flat out bizarre.

It’s like you warn someone something won’t work, he goes ahead and does it anyways, and when it doesn’t work, he’s justified in attacking you because you were right in the first place.

Kind of sidesteps taking responsibility for one’s own actions, huh?

Does that count as a Strawman? Or just a really nutty irrational comment? Ya gotta luv TP… ya see everything here after a while.