Giuliani: U.S. should focus more on Pakistan
I agree with Rudy, we need to focus more on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless we understand that the real issue in Iraq is political, our troops will be bogged down in a civil war which will keep increasing al-Qaeda’s strength. We must recognize the different groups in Iraq and stop forcing a strong federal government. The Parliament in Iraq spoke loudly by refusing to meet to iron out the differences between the groups before the September deadline and instead going on vacation for the month of August.
A surge or withdrawal is a tactic not a plan. Neither idea has a chance without calming sectarian violence.
USATODAY-The United States has been distracted “for a while” by military setbacks and political heat surrounding the Iraq war, Giuliani said, not focusing enough on al-Qaeda’s resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
…Some of Giuliani’s comments echoed critics of the war in Iraq who argue that the invasion drew attention and resources away from the battle against the home base of al-Qaeda, which carried out the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani, however, called the Iraq war “enormously important,” but he said other challenges from Islamic terrorism also demanded attention….
….”I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”…..
FYI
POLITICO-Liberals Vow to Block Continued Iraq Funding
Seventy House members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops.
This is a big development. Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn’t want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out.
The next Iraq funding bill won’t come up until the fall, so this showdown won’t happen for a few months, but it appears to be shaping up as an epic battle between liberals in Congress and President Bush. This may be the beginning of the end for the Iraq War.
The liberals’ full letter to Bush appears after the jump …
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
FYI
Politico-Koch urges withdrawal from Iraq
I’m bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war. While our men and women in the military suffer casualties daily, the Iraqi government refuses to take the major political steps required to end the civil war.
The U.S. government told the Iraqi government that it needed to achieve 18 goals. Our administration’s recent report to the U.S. Congress on how close the Iraqis have come to achieving those goals states that eight have been achieved, no progress has been made on eight others and two have had mixed results.
With regard to the most important goals, which include bringing the Sunni population into the Shia-dominated government by removing the bans against those (primarily Sunnis) who had served in the prior Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, the grade was zero.
The Iraqi government similarly received a zero for failing to enact legislation that would equitably divide the country’s oil income among the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite ethnic regions. Currently the Kurds and Shia share the oil revenues because the oil fields are located in the areas they control. The Sunnis control very few oil fields.
The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning it and having that battle shift to American soil, which I am certain will happen when we leave Iraq. But my support for remaining in Iraq was conditioned on our allies joining us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, very few have done so. Instead, many of those same allies criticize us for staying in Iraq.
Only one major ally, Great Britain, has joined us with any serious contribution of troops. Even that in numbers — 7,100 — is paltry compared to our 140,000 troops, now increased to 160,000. Tony Blair was cast out as prime minister in part because he supported the U.S. in Iraq. Under the new prime minister, Laborite Gordon Brown, the British commitment is shrinking and the inevitability of a British withdrawal is clear.
The cost to date for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is computed at about $400 billion, with $12 billion per month being spent in Iraq alone. The Bush administration has declined to leave Iraq, opting instead for what they call the “surge,” increasing our military forces to 160,000 by bringing in an additional 30,000 American troops.
In September, our new commanding general on the ground, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will report on whether the surge is working. But already the administration suggests that a September assessment may not cover enough time to determine success or failure. In any event, Petraeus has stated that political changes by the Iraqi government are necessary and that military progress by itself is not enough. The media recently reported that American soldiers on the ground fear they are being betrayed by and fired upon by members of the Iraqi army and police force.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki stated over the weekend, “We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish.”
In the meantime, the civil war escalates. This week alone on a single day more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed and near 200 injured in two car bombings. Our soldiers cannot end the civil war for the Iraqis. Their soldiers have to do that. My voice is a modest one, so I would like to buttress my pro-withdrawal position with arguments put forth by the highly regarded New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. In his July 11 column, he stated:
FYI
Politico-Crocker’s remarks steam Democrats
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker briefed members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning via satellite from Iraq, downplaying the importance of benchmarks in measuring progress in the country, a move that angered Democrats.
“The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discrete, precisely defined benchmarks,” Crocker told the committee during a hearing.
Crocker also spoke to lawmakers at an earlier briefing at the Pentagon, appearing with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Last week, President Bush delivered a mixed report on progress towards achieving a set of 18 benchmarks for political, security and diplomatic reforms in Iraq.
“He tried to put a good face on it,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of Crocker’s assessment of the situation on the ground.
Many Democrats, however, said Crocker was just trying to buy time for an administration running out of options.
“This administration truly doesn’t know what to do. They don’t have a way out,” Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said after the hearing.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she had a “bad feeling” that Crocker’s remarks were just setting the stage for more evasiveness in September, when Crocker and Petraeus are expected to deliver a report to Congress on the progress of Bush’s troop surge.
“Every single time they promise something, this administration backs down,” she said.
During questioning, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) accused Crocker of “trying to move the goal posts” by downplaying the benchmarks, a charge which Crocker denied.
Crocker said the situation on the ground was too complex to be measured solely by benchmarks, highlighting successes in Anbar province and in reducing sectarian violence in Baghdad, while still painting a grim picture of life in Iraq.
“If there is one word I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq … that word would be fear,” Crocker said.
FYI
FROM-Sen. Robert Byrd
My Letter to President Bush
Dear Mr. President:
“We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities . . . .[W]e judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here. As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.”
Those are the words contained in the declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released yesterday. Those are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our government. Those are the words that should force our government — both in the Executive and Legislative branches — to reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to stop terrorist attacks against this country.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations has approved legislation investing $37.6 billion in the nation’s highest-priority security projects. These dollars would be put to use immediately, toughening border security with new agents, better technology, and stricter immigration enforcement to close gaps that terrorists could exploit (as did the 9/11 hijackers). These dollars would help to shut down the dangerous gaps in security at U.S. seaports. The legislation would make serious investments in security at the nation’s airports, deploying new canine teams and screening technology at airports nationwide to detect explosives and radiation in cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft. The funds would provide critical support for police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical teams — the first line of response to any attack.
Unfortunately, you have threatened to veto the homeland security funding legislation. In light of the new analysis from our intelligence experts and the warnings that they and Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff have voiced, I urge you to reconsider this veto threat.
With the concerns outlined by your Administration’s top experts, and with the glaring gaps that continue to exist in our homeland security protections, we must come together in the best interests of the American people. It is their lives and their futures in danger. Posturing will not protect the people from attack. Smart investments in their security will.
Just last week, the Secretary of Homeland Security was quoted as saying that it was his “gut feeling” that the United States faces an increased threat of attack this summer. On the heels of the Secretary’s warnings, the Administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report:
“We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities . . . .[W]e judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here. As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment…. We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population.”
Those are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our government. Those are the words that should force compel our government — both in the Executive and Legislative branches — to reevaluate the place a far higher priority that we are giving on providing the resources necessary to stop prevent terrorist attacks against this country.
In every State of the Union Address since the attacks on 9/11, the President has raised the specter of another attack. This past January, he said, “Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy . . . I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not.”
Yet, despite his warnings, the President’s budget fails to commit significant resources to address these dangers. Too often, the Department of Homeland Security settles for security that looks good on paper but leaves serious gaps in the defense of our homeland. There is too much rhetoric on homeland security and too little action – too much wind and not enough wisdom.
I am saddened to realize that, despite hearing receiving troubling new information about our nation’s vulnerability to a future terrorist attack, the President has not retracted his veto threat. However, he did make a point of criticizing the Senate for not doing its part to pass appropriations legislation. I think this is baloney. The Senate is doing its part to protect the American people. Issuing criticism and veto threats does nothing to help protect the nation. The White House certainly does a lot of talking, but talk is cheap. Security isn’t. The President needs to realize that securing the homeland cannot be done with nickels and dimes.
The Senate will begin debate on a responsible Homeland Security funding bill next week. I urge the President to reconsider his reckless veto threats. If he really believes, as I do, that government’s most important job is keeping our country safe, he should work with the Senate to make good on that solemn responsibility.
This is THE repository for liberal, defeatist rhetoric…Daily Kos must be jealous.
FYI
Fun with the Pentagon
Politico-Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman, a former Cheney aide, really handed Hillary an enormous gift with his letter warning that “[p]remature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda.”
That may have worked in 2004. Now it’s just a gift to Hillary. Her staff would not, of course, say whether they knew how the AP had “obtained” Edelman’s letter. But it was an incredible gift to her, and her aides promptly hit it out of the park, right there in the first version of the story.
Her Senate spokesman, Philippe Reines, demanded that the administration provide a withdrawal plan rather than “a political plan to attack those who question them.”
He also called the comments “outrageous and dangerous” and, to boot, warned against “redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq.”
Is there still any danger here for Clinton, any chance that voters — Democratic primary voters?! — consider criticism of the war effort and discussion of withdrawal disloyal? Edelman seems to have thought so — that excerpt reads as a shot across the bows. But it’s a bit too late in the day for that, isn’t it? When you’ve everyone from Richard Lugar to a front-page blogger on Kos getting your back, it’s a pretty good day.
Certainly, the Clinton campaign’s reaction — and stay tuned for a planned response directly to Defense Secretary Robert Gates — suggests that this is just the sort of fight they’d like more of.
Bart
The Politico is from the right not the left!
BTW Lefthook complains I am being bias by using them so much. I know how C-Span feels when both sides thinks you are bias if it is not their story line.
The truth is for everyone I try as best as I can to put out all sides from different sources. I do not claim to be perfect and will have a bias.
Yet as I said just because I post an article or ask a question does not mean I support the article.
I do think on balance I use many different sources from Fox, CNN, The Hill, Politico, NPR, C-Span, MSN,USAToday,AJC………….
The part I find very interesting is most sources carry the same articles. The only difference is where they place them.
Yet I do not keep count how many articles I use from which side.
Ron Paul signed this letter. Three cheers for Dr. Paul!
“Liberals Vow to Block Continued Iraq Funding”
“Koch urges withdrawal from Iraq”
“Crocker’s remarks steam Democrats”
“FROM-Sen. Robert Byrd”
If these headlines are coming from a right wing site, then the left wing has taken over.
Politico is not a conservative site John. Do you EVER verify anything before you make these completely uninformed statements?
Bart
FYI please take foot out of mouth.
BTW this sounds like an article Lefthook would wrote about Politico.
I wish it was another conservative voice because there is no doubt your liberal side has its say from so many sources.
But it is not John — what is the source of this hit piece against Politico?
Bart
This site lets all views post. I even let your liberal spending views be heard.
I do not think the liberals would put me in their camp other than you.
The source on the Politico article is The Phoenix
As I said Lefthook has been making that point to me for awhile. He kept writing me telling me the negative articles about democrats usually come from politico. I have argued back that they have taken shots at all sides.
Bart
This is the argument Lefthook also makes all the time.
Nice try John…here’s some of the comments you intentionally deleted from the Phoenix op-ed — why do you try to deceive readers John?:
Harris (Politico Editor-in-chief John Harris) won’t have it. “I just emphatically reject” allegations of pro-conservative bias, he told the Phoenix. “The idea that we are organized around a conservative world-view — I don’t even know where to begin. It just simply does not resonate with me in any way.
“I know my own values and my own point of view,” added Harris. “I know that’s not true in terms of what our intent is. Maybe they’re not even saying what our intent is, but what the impact is. But I just don’t buy that.”
At the outset, it’s worth noting that Politico also has its critics on the right, though they’re either less numerous or less vocal than are their liberal counterparts. After the Reagan Library debate, for example, syndicated columnist/Clinton hater Dick Morris spoke of a “deliberate act by Politico.com and MSNBC . . . to hurt Rudy.” Tony Blankley of the Washington Times said Politico’s questions were “ridiculous.” And the conservative media watchdog NewsBusters didn’t like them much, either.
Bart
I did not deceive because I gave the link out.Also I gave you the arguement that Lefthook made.
And that facts are Politico is owned by a conservative.
And no one but you would call it a liberal news source.
Bart
You are the king of SPIN!
I consider Politico to be a balanced, unbiased site for the most part. I never said it was liberal, just the stories you pulled lean left.
You didn’t provide the link until asked.
You didn’t include the ‘money’ quote from the EiC.
You DID try to deceive.
That was because I said I thought they were not bias.
bart
The facts!
Politico has only been accused of being biased toward conservatives via news reporting and ownership.
At best people like me say they are not bias.
No one but you has ever accused them of being liberal!
Anyway you SPIN IT you are wrong bottom line!
BTW THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED!
John wrote — “The Politico is from the right not the left!” I rest my case.
bb wrote — “This is THE repository for liberal, defeatist rhetoric…Daily Kos must be jealous.” — I was referring to control congress, not Politico.
Bart
Nice Try SPIN SPIN SPIN!!!!!
BTW Bart Do you Willaim F Buckley is conservative?
Why or why not?
John
I think William F. Buckley is a conservative. The best way to describe why is to direct you to the National Review online. Read any of his columns and the answers will shine right through.
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – It’s time to reign in spending!
John first writes — 8:51am: “The Politico is from the right not the left!”
Then less than two hours later, John recants his own position — 10:43am: “That was because I said I thought they were not bias.”
So which is it John…from the right or unbiased?
What does Buckley have to do with your flip-flopping positions on Politico or the subject of this thread which has yet to be addressed despite this being the 23rd post?
Bart
Answer the question is Buckley conservative or liberal?
Bart
Because that is what end many in the inudustry call them.
That is why you should answer if you think Buckley is conservative so I understand what you think is conservative.
You Do know about William F Buckley ?
Sgt. Mac
This is from William F Buckley!
Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative!
(CBS) President Bush ran for office as a “compassionate conservative.” And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.
But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.
Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.
I will happily answer bb’s question. Politico has a rightward slant. They deny it, and try harder than Fox News and talk radio to hide it, but they lean conservative.
Just out of curiosity, why do people equate Iraq with the “war on terrorism?” We won that war against Saddam which did say WMD was “the issue” to get authorization but everyone in Congress, I believe, knew it was for a huge variety of reasons and that WMD was just a rally point. But, it was never really a “war on terror” issue except that al-Qaeda is using it like it is using many nations that have oil or other resources we use, as targets or where they think they can gain political power.
While I do believe Pakistan is a huge problem in “the war on terror,” it still doesn’t eliminate the commitment we made to support the new government of Iraq after we won the war against Saddam and agreed to rebuild Iraq (probably if they would continue to sell oil in dollars).
I think we are doing as much, if not more harm, to the new government by staying but, that is the commitment we made and hopefully, Iraq will ask us to leave rather than just say we can leave. But, if we do leave, they could lose to the radical side, or they could align with Iran and sell their oil in euros which would really hurt the value of the dollar.
Whether they have civil war or not, we need to have the sale of their oil in dollars if we want to help prop the dollar up by keeping demand for the dollar high.
Pakistan, being an “ally” that doesn’t police its own nation is a huge obstacle because we can’t get “authorization” from the U.N. or other allies to attack the area al-Qaeda or Taliban operates from at this time.
Should we “declare war?” Use limited force? Seek U.N. authorization? What exactly would those who believe Pakistan is the problem have us to do?
Either fight the opposition to the new government in Iraq to win, or ask them to request we leave. If they will do neither and won’t allow us to fight to defeat their opponents and won’t ask us to leave, but keep us in limbo, then I don’t have a problem with Congress and the President authorizing a withdrawal. Maybe that threat would cause the Iraq government to act more decisively. I don’t think they can act more decisively though, because they like us, have a split government.
We had a specific goal when we resumed the war. Remove Saddam, return sales of oil to dollars, and put a new government in place. We did that.
However, when we completed that mission we set about with a new one where rebuilding the nation and supporting the new government had no clear cut goals. Instead, we said we would let the new government set the goals even though we really didn’t know what they would be. We agreed to support “unknowns.”
I believe it was the lack of goals and a strategy, therefore, to reach specific goals with measurable steps and and defined end, that has led to this mess that allows politicians to each set their own goals or lack of goals as a talking point.
Some of us wrote to our representatives, the party and the President when this began and warned this would happen with our politicians. It happened in other “limited actions,” and will happen again should we attack Pakistan or Iran or some other nation without a clear goal that is Congressionally approved of.
Too many have protested this action in Iraq as if it is the same action that involved the removal of Saddam. This is an entirely different mission and one without a clear end point because we let Iraq’s new government set the terms with a “split” government which as a vague goal of “peace” between Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. We don’t secure the borders. We don’t secure neighborhoods adequately, and we can’t usually, even attack a mosque filled with terrorists. We can’t reach agreement on oil wealth issues, a republic or single nation type system of government, or other issues that would allow defined goals for our military.
This like many things, is often a series of “compromises.” I support this if you support that. However, once the support for that “something else” is no longer needed, our politicians often stop support what they agreed to support.
Is that what we are going to have a reputation as a nation as, also? Are we going to be a nation who makes commitments and then doesn’t live up to them when things get tough? I think we are.
I think that like many socialist nations we will back down on commitments when they get tough or threaten to pull money away from social spending. That belief is why some opposed the war and the following support for the new government. They feared it would require spending that would decrease spending for social programs. So, this President decided to do both. Spend on the military and spend even more on social programs as a compromise. And, “we the people,” through our Congress allowed that to take place and passed the legislation necessary for “both” to take place.
A nation “divided” against itself, is what we have ended up with and that weakens any nation that is like that until it “unites” again with common goals and policies to reach those goals. That doesn’t mean either side is right or wrong but, it does mean the nation will suffer as long as it is split between the two views of “what is best.” It does mean we may make commitments we aren’t really prepared to keep for long.
Bart needs to be cuddled…poor baby. If there isn’t a “ballance”, meaning ‘if there isn’t someone lying about how things are going in Iraq being given equal time’, then it is unfair to the “faith-based” voters who still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and that the war is a good thing to keep spending $12 billion + US body parts on each month.
Politico is a creepy place…my opinion. Lots of ‘Page 6′ material, too much for my tastes.
Hey, everybody ready for Patraeus? He’s going to lie his a*s off, and the right-wingers will eat it up like cheesecake, get all fat and happy over it.
Political diabetics…
OH…and unless it was advice on how to cheat on your wife and get away with it, I wouldn’t be taking a word of what Guiliani says seriously. Even when I agree with the crux of what he’s saying, the reality of how stupid and opportunistic a person he is just overshaddows everything.
John
Re your post #26 above. The question is whether Buckley is a conservative, not Bush. Obviously you forgot to read your own question.
Buckley is a conservative.
Al
Do you have some inside info that Patraeus will lie? Please provide you SOURCE for this assertion. I suspect you can’t, but will continue to rant irrespective of your comments veracity.
Maybe he’ll report things are going well, maybe not, but let’s at least keep things factual.
By the way Al, again we agree on something….Politico runs right up there with the DailyKos and moveon.org for creepiness.
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – A return to traditional American values is the way!
SgtMac
Did you know the article is about Bush not being cosevative via his policy in Iraq?
John, why does your blog attract so many prolific Neo-Cons? The true Americans need to be more vocal!
John
I read the article and YOUR question still stands. You asked if Buckley, NOT Bush is conservative. I’ve already answered that.
Also, regarding post #33, Hugh said “The true Americans need to be more vocal.” Hugh, would that be the white anglo bigotted Americans who spout ridiculous, unproven, unsourced, UNBELIEVABLE conspiracies in virtually every post?
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – The liberals and tin-foil hat crowd need to be reigned in!