18 Iraqi brigades?

[Anonymous]

Concho, I think that either way, win or lose in Iraq, Republicans lose the presidency. If the economy is in the toilet in Nov. ’08 (and I think it will be, big-time), Republicans will lose, no matter how well things went in Iraq.

I say this as the Republican precinct representative in my neighborhood. I’m not happy about it, but that’s the way it will be, I think.

I just hope it ain’t Osama or Clintong who takes the White House; c’mon Joe Lieberman!

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

There is hope.

Ron Paul may run for President in ’08

[PerryChase]

jg, i’m curious about who you think (Republicans or Democrats) are to blame for the economy going “in the toilet” as you put it? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and won’t put you on spot about Iraq ’til next year.

Republicans controlled the presidency and Congress up until recently. If their economic management skills are so good then why are we facing the prospects of the recession that you’re predicting? And why are they not preparing us to face that reality?

[North County Jim]

do you think it’s “normal” for Condi Rice to stay single at her age? She has a hot bod for her age, huh? Maybe there’s more to it than you think.

It’s the demography Perry. No demographic group weds in lower numbers than professional black women.

[Anonymous]

Don’t post much here, anymore.

jg, you were judgmental. You quoted statistics, and yet here you had a real life example, and all you did with the opportunity was spout statistics, from a source even you admit is a biased special interest group. Real life examples are usually much more interesting, and have a chance to change opinion more readily than any summation of soulless numbers.

I am not excited by any of the Dems in ’08, because I believe support for civil unions instead of full marriage rights is intellectually dishonest.

Ultimately, the tradition in America is to believe that marriage is an individual right, the right to chose a spouse and start a family. This is (currently) why we don’t restrict the right based on intellectual capacity, ethnicity, financial resourses, etc. By placing restrictions on marriage (must be between a man and a woman) you are making it obvious to everyone that marriage is not an individual right, it is actually a state-sactioned priviledge.

By fighting to keep marriage (with restrictions) a state-sanctioned priveledge, the relgious right and the Republican party are not protecting marriage, they are seriously undermining it. Its as simple as Brad and Angelina saying they will get married only when everyone can get married. Who cares, right? Many long term couples feel happy with their lives, now they have the words to defer the pressure that they feel to conform to what is now obviously not the natural state of heightened commitment, but in fact a state-sponsored contract.

Gays and lesbians have had the ability to choose any model they want for their relationships. The “joy” of the community is that you decide your responsibilities, your role, not the crushing weight of history and acculturation. The intellectual leaders of the communiity have often opposed supporting the fight for marriage–why copy staight society? When hundreds (thousands) or same-sex couples lined up on the courthouse steps in MA and SF, there was no coordination; those were thousands of independent individuals, who felt the lack in their lives, who wanted marriage, and who believed in it.

By “protecting marriage”, I feel society is on its way to destroying it. And, nonconformist that I am, I still believe in marriage. But for how long?

[Anonymous]

You know the answer, Perry: the Republicans had a signal opportunity these last six years to reform Social Security, shrink government, simplify the tax code, privatize schools, etc. and blew it. Very sad to say, for me.

Same with Iraq: President Bush never gave a darn about public or media opinion (and I believe that is an outstanding trait for a leader); he should have just dictated to Al-Maliki and fought the way that we needed to (fighting and disbanding Al-Sadr, sealing the Iranian and Syrian borders, etc.). Iraq would have been swept clean by now.

Same thing for Big Bill in the ’90s: if he really was a ‘New’ Democrat (fairly conservative, socially and fiscally), he had a great chance to get Social Security in order, etc. But, he blew it (or Monica did, ha, ha).

Ron Paul is a highly interesting character. Where I don’t follow him is in his terror-fighting approach (I really think that we’re at war, and must take strong measures to root out Islamo-Fascists, especially the ‘sleeper cells’ stateside). His economic and small government ideas make great sense, though.

kjm, may you and your partner find happiness.

[Mark Holmes]

jg, Just have to respond to your comment about 600B not equalling 600B today and the Manhattan for $28… the article clearly states that they are talking in 2006 dollars, in other words, their numbers are adjusted for inflation. Some would say this doesn’t make sense, considering the number of troops involved, but think about it. We today are far more reliant on incredibly high tech (and incredibly expensive) weapons systems. At the rate we’re going, if this isn’t wrapped up soon, we could very well bankrupt the country. Sounds impossible? History says otherwise…countless countries, governments and empires have been brought to their knees by foreign wars. I hope the current congress can stop Bush before we join the list.

[sdnativeson]

certainly are a lot of people here with a lot of style…
too bad it comes at the cost of a lack of class.

[Anonymous]

MH, I have the GDP data for ’29-’05 and the CPI data for the same period.

National defense spending over ’42-’43 was $135B. The CPI index in ’43 was 17.3. The CPI index in as of Nov. ’06 was 202; prices went up 12X. Thus, the $135B is more like $1.6 trillion.

I don’t understand the La La Times’ historic numbers. And, I certainly don’t trust their numbers.

Yep, wars are expensive. But, if you believe, as some of us do, that these folks would prefer to wipe us off the face of the earth/slit our throats here on our soil (read Steve Emerson’s book, “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us”; I did, and it’s frightening), then bankruptcy ain’t so high a cost.

And, it won’t come to that, if Bush does the right thing and allows our troops take off the damn gloves.

[Mark Holmes]

jg, perhaps you’re right on numbers, assuming your source is better than the LA Times – I simply choose to trust one of the top five papers in the country while you choose to not. I think if the LA Times was fudging their numbers so publicly, there would be hell to pay once people started stepping forward to refute them. And yes, these people do want to wipe us off the face of the earth; but their capability to do so has been greatly exaggerated in the past six years. As it stands, I have a greater chance of being killed by an asteroid than by international terrorists. I don’t think our response has been commensurate to the risk is all. We should be doing all we can to stop terrorists, but this country faces many greater risks to its well being than terrorism. I love this country as much as you do, but simply disagree with the current administrations tactics in its response to September 11th.

[lostkitty]

jg-

I would say that our chances of being killed or injured by terrorists has dramatically INCREASED in the last six years. The ranks of terrorists has dramatically increased as well.

Just ask the 22,714 Americans injured, and the 3,018 dead… oh wait, cant ask that group… Sadly, they are gone forever.

“Disagreeing” with this administration’s tactics in response to 9/11 is not enough. Everyone should be outraged, furious with them & their response. Things are worse without question.

[sdnativeson]

“Just ask the 22,714 Americans injured, and the 3,018 dead… oh wait, cant ask that group… Sadly, they are gone forever.”

Speak for yourself and to what you know lostkitty. Where do you get the authority/gall to speak for others? Especially the Americans you mention above.

[Anonymous]

lk, please feel free to present your throat and those of your family to the Islamo-Fascists. I prefer to fight, and I support politicians who prefer to fight.

I did my duty for five years on the front lines of defense of our nation, and younger brave men and women have taken my place on that front line.

Ask the folks in the military, including the injured, whether they think that they’re doing the right thing. You’ll be surprised at what you hear.

lk, folks who do military service are different. Specifically, they are, on average, mentally, physically, and morally superior to the general civilian population. There are outstanding folks who serve willingly, sometimes tragically:
http://www.williams.edu/home/focus/krissoff/

Yeah, lk, the ’93 WTC bombing (i.e., more than six years ago) was just a ‘cry for help and attention’ from the Islamo-Fascists? Nah, lk, they wanted to kill 75-100K Americans, and still do, and are still trying.

[PerryChase]

The GOP in a Quagmire. Democrats don’t have to criticize Bush on Iraq anymore. The Republican insiders are doing it for them.
—————
The GOP in a Quagmire
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701711.html

“Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party,” a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush’s principal political advisers.

But Republican opposition has intensified rather than diminished since the president’s speech. What was whispered privately is now declared publicly. At last week’s hearing, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s second-ranking Republican — Chuck Hagel — called Bush’s new strategy “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Republicans can only hope that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now.
—————

The Democrats should be sitting back, emphasize a forward-looking, positive message of economic reform, health care reform and green energy alternatives. Let the Repubicans dig their own burial hole.

[lostkitty]

I did not speak for them – I did not say one word about whether or not any of those Americans agreed with the situation or why they are fighting or not.

Do not put words in my mouth.

The #’s of killed and wounded in this thing is FAR larger than we’d have had with a different response to 9/11. This administration has made things worse. there is no denying it. The numbers tell the whole story.

JG- I have been a military spouse for almost 2 decades… no need to spew that condescending BS at me.

Of course they want to kill Americans – and now they have thousands upon thousands of brothers in their ranks to help, where before there were only a few isolated groups!

[Author]

Posts