-- a policy that has been a monumental failure from day one to now. --
I don't know how you can say this without a smile on your face unless you are one of these sinlge brain cell morons. The policies of the post-invasion Iraq were a blunder, in hindsight, which as we know is always 20/20. However, the new strategy has produced marked and somewhat dramatic results over the past 9 months.
Did you even listen to the hours of testimony these two great Americans enagaged in over the last few days? There has been enromous poltical reconciliaiton and their brand new, infant legislature managed to be more cohesive and managed to get significantly more done than our inept Congress. The Basra situation was an enormous development as well. Now, I'll admit that that Maliki did not eliminate the Sadr forces, but they did mobilize an impressive and centralized effort to address a situation that needed to be addressed for a couple of years. The fact that the central government was able to pull off a coordinated military campaign and walk away from it with tangible results should be a welcome sign to anyone hoping for progress in Iraq. However, Dems who are completely wed to a US defeat will never admit this and their enablers in the MSM further distort the truth because they are hoping for a terrorist and extremeist victory. They should all be ashamed that they are putting millions of lives in jeopardy for a slight advantage in the domestic political climate of the US. Fortunately, the American people are not a stupid as Dems and the MSM would like them to be. Americans are an optimistic people by nature, and a majority still hope for a sustainable Iraqi government.
Forget that we went in or that the policies did not work as we wanted them to before. The question is, how do we want to leave Iraq? Do we want to leave it broken and unable to defend itself or its citizens, or do we want a government that can protect itself from foreign nations and can provide safety for its citizens? I suggest you speak to some veterans returning from recent service and get their interpretation. I have personally talked to two friends who just returned from their THIRD tour. One is a Capt. in the Corp who commands a Recon company, and the other is a sergeant combat engineer in the Corps. They both speak of "incredible" progress and say we are on the verge of victory. Go figure that this perspective from the troops and personnel on the ground does not make into our national discorse. I am ashamed at times to be an American when we have such selfish and ignorant citizens. I should expect no less from the citizens of a state that elected Rod Blowheartavich twice though. Sigggghhhhh. Ugggggghhhhhhh.Comment Posted By Joe On 9.04.2008 @ 19:04
Great article!! If John McCain was a lawyer, and his former boss was implicated in a trial that involved a former client and this kind of corruption, do you think the MSM would sit on it's collective thumbs?
BTW, it is Allison Davis, not Allison Walker. Just a minor typo I'm sure.Comment Posted By Joe On 4.04.2008 @ 12:52
"Iâ€™m no expert, but if I had to choose whether to be the DNC or the RNC this cycle, I think I would have to go with the DNC (see: fundraising, voter turnout, candidatesâ€™ voter-appeal, not scandal-ridden, non-cheerleading for unpopular/unsuccessful Iraq debacle, etc)"
Fundraising: Every dollar a Dem raises goes right out the door to attack and damage and the other Dem in the race. They are using their money adantage in a way that is beneficial to McCain. The RNC is out fundraising the DNC and Repubs have always raised large sums of money for 527s. Add to that the public financing pledge of Obama, and I don't think there is the large fundraising gap everyone perceives. Besides, McCain can collect every penny he raises between now and June (at least) while the Dems are still spending their money attacking each other.
Voter Turnout: Dems historically have higher turnout in their primary contests than the Repubs. Add to that the fact that significant numbers of Repubs have been viting in Dem primaries for whatever reason (most of whom will not vote Dem in Nov) and the voter-turnout "gap" is not nearly as pronounced as people claim. It is there and it is something that has to be overcome, but its not as insurmountable as most would be lead to believe.
Voter Appeal: Both Obama and Clinton have higher unfavorables than McCain and on a question of who would definatly vote for/not vote for a candidate, Obama (as of late Feb) had a -9, Clinton had a -14, and McCain had a +1. More people said they would definatly vote for McCain than those that said they would definatly not vote for him. The Dems were both beat by their own detractors. Additionally, as the long primary draws out, the unfavorables of Obama/Clinton will continue to rise while McCain is free to work on improving his favorables.
Not-Scandal Ridden: Okay, you are a kool-aid drinker. Obama has more skeletons in his closet than he knows what to do with and I suspect many of them are going to begin to see the light of day. Just keep these names in mind: REZKO, AUCHI, AIHAM ALSAMMARAE. Clinton has plenty to hide too, inlcuding the foreign business deals Slick Willy has been engaged in and the fact that some of that money found its way into Hillary's war chest. The tax returns, foreign investors in the Clinton Library, ect, ect, ect, ect, ect. More than anything, the Rezko trial is going to show the country what true blue Dem politics is like in its capital, Chicago.
Non-cheerleading for Iraq: This is a simple minded and misguided perception of the situation. First and foremost, Americans do not like to lose. If they have a choice between sticking with a startegy that is leading to success (which the surge undeniably is) or surrending our victories and achievements for no reason other than poltics, the people will choose the former over the latter. Additionally, recent polling has shown that over 50% of the country says we should not pull our troops out of Iraq if progress is being made, which it is. Once the debate begins, most Americans will be for vicotry, not surrender. This is disheartening and unacceptable to Dems because they have allowed Pelosi and the anti-war loons to hijack their party, wedding the Democratic party to surrender and defeatism. We can make that case and we will make it very successfully.
If I was you, I would be worrying about my own party. The Dems are in the process of grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. It was their year and they had no reason not to win. Now, they will be lucky to pull their party together in a way that can make for real comepetition in November. The only hope for Dems is a Clinton/Obama ticket, and I can tell you, I just do not see him taking that position for numerous reasons. Other than that, Obama people better pray for an Obama win in Pennsylvania, because that is the only the way the nomination process does not end in dissapointment for 50% of the party. Have fun and good luck with all of that!Comment Posted By Joe On 6.03.2008 @ 12:29
All your tests are nothing more than trivia. Knowing that the USA had a civil war and why is all you need. It is utterly useless to know what year it happened! I am more concerned about our lack of computer and finacial skills. How many of you OLD Farts know who Neo is? There is more depth and meaning and social value in one Wachowski brother script than all of the tales from Giovanni Boccaccio. YOUR TEST ARE THE (your) PROBLEM NOT THE KIDS.Comment Posted By Joe On 28.02.2008 @ 16:00
I think we only win in November with McCain the nominee. That sort of pains me b/c he's been so wrong on so many issues. But better half-a-loaf then no loaf with the Democrats and being stuck with the bill to boot.
So I hope McCain picks a VP running-mate that's out of the box. How about JC Watts or Michael Steele? See Obama fight that.Comment Posted By Joe On 7.01.2008 @ 14:21
So does this mean you'll also be writing letters to Sean Hannity and Roger Ailes? I mean, Hannity considers her a friend and Fox regularly gives her plenty of ventilation time which reaches a wider audience considering Fox's higher ratings compared to CNN.Comment Posted By Joe On 3.03.2007 @ 23:32
"Not having read much philosophy, I began by reading the Greeks Socrates and Aristotle, moved on to Erasmus, devoured Kant, Hume, and Rousseau and ended my initial explorations with Hegel and Marx. To this day, it is hard to put into words the excitement I felt when the ideas of those giants slammed into me, so powerful was was the force of their logic and personalities."
I find this quote hilarious. You "devoured" Kant? Um, ok, sure.Comment Posted By Joe On 8.02.2007 @ 20:10
I'm sorry Jonathan. I stand corrected. What I was meaning was that Rick does a great job at the way he edits out the comments that have profanity in them.Comment Posted By Joe On 10.01.2007 @ 21:30
I just wanted to comment on the fact of the amount of comments that dissagree with you on a daily basis. I have personaly seen them being the fact that you are family and I have seen and helped with computer problems that you have had. So don't let that gentleman Pete get you to step down to his level. You do a great job with your site and trying to edit those who try to make this a profound site. I also know the extreme amount of hours that you put into your research on the topics that you write about. All I can say is if most people would put half the effort in thier jobs as you do into your site maybe they might be able to appreciate the job you do here and maybe even have a bit more pride in the things they do.Comment Posted By Joe On 5.01.2007 @ 06:39
I am also a left winger and no matter what you have always made me think and have been a real challenge when we have got into debates on differrent subjects. So once again thanks for the amount of work that you do put into this site and the help that you have been to me and my family over the years.
A large 95% confidence range is not necessarily a bad thing, if they state that it really is that large. Does it really matter if the number of excess deaths is 400,000 or 700000? It still is a lot. Also, I can tell you that the reason why the used 95% as their confidence interval is that if you have above 95% confidence in your results, they are called 'statistically signifigant". It was interesting thait the rate of NON-violent deaths was not statistically changed (p=0.528, I believe), which is a good control to have. It would have been really good if they had asked the families if they had taken the bodies to the morgues, or if they had the deaths reported in any way. Apparently 92% of the deaths were confirmed by death certificate, however. Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the paper, but I just use stats at work, I am not a statistician myself. I await better heads to evaluate it. The timing is not suspect, however. There is no doubt that it was timed precisely to be released now. The paper itself doesn't seem wrong, however. Don't reject it just because it says what you don't want to hear, at a time you don't want to hear it.Comment Posted By Joe On 11.10.2006 @ 13:17