October 10-12, 2007
Oct 10 10:13 A Leader Leads, Romney Consults Oct 10 13:11 MUST SEE!!! Hannity's America Oct 11 09:44 The Truth, The Whole Truth & Nothing But The Truth Oct 11 12:56 It Must've Just About killed Him Oct 11 15:31 Being Lazy Is Hard Work Oct 11 17:10 As Low As It Gets Oct 12 00:53 Life in the Land of Delusion Oct 12 13:19 Fighting the Terrorists On the Cheap?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
A Leader Leads, Romney Consults
That's what yesterday's debate really came down to. When Mitt Romney was asked what he'd do if confronted by Iran, he said that he'd consult with his lawyers. At that point, he lost. A leader doesn't consult first. He leads. That's the type of weasel answer I'd expect from John Edwards, not from a Republican.
He also tried getting cute at the end with Fred Thompson and got smacked around good, too. He said that these debates were "alot like Law & Order...with Fred Thompson showing up at the end." Fred chided him saying "And I thought I was the best actor on stage."
Though he started the debate a little nervous, Sen. Thompson clearly got stronger as the debate went on, giving detailed answers along the way. Little Chrissie Matthews even chided him for giving a detailed answer, saying "You should've stopped at no." Thompson quickly responded saying "That's your opinion, Chris."
Rudy was strong throughout, giving solid answers throughout. I thought his weakest spot was when he got drawn into a catfight with Romney. Even then, I thought his feistiness in rebutting Romney's statistics earned him points. Though he didn't win any points, it showed he wasn't going to get pushed around.
Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Ron Paul need to go, especially Paul. His foreign policies would get us killed. Brownback's a nice guy but he's clueless. He'd be more useful in the senate, where he'd cast reliable Republican votes.
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment 1 by Ryan at 11-Oct-07 10:55 AM
Romney's answer was the only one that was thoughtful and correct. You have to look at the answer as a whole. It's always wise for a president to look at the constitutionality of his actions before acting. After all, defending and upholding the constitution is his only real job description. So just say preemptively that you'll send the troops into action without considering the consequences on all counts is irresponsible and it's really just a bunch of conservative bravado (and I'm a conservative). You can bet that not a single one of the other candidates, if faced with a situation such as the one in question, would just send the troops in without consulting the lawyers first to make sure they have the right to do so. Also, if the put the entirety of Romney's answer in context, it is the only one that was the right answer, even if it doesn't sound popular.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Oct-07 11:57 AM
Ryan, I just reread the transcript. Romney was asked if it was required to get Congress involved.
No less a consitutional scholar than Ted Olsen said that it isn't.
If you look at Romney's answer, you'll notice that he's tapdancing the entire time. That's the polite way of saying that he wasn't prepared for the question. That's inexcusable since we're a nation at war.
Characterize him as thoughtful all you want but it still won't change the fact that he was clueless on a hugely important issue.
MUST SEE!!! Hannity's America
I just got the word from Darryl Sharratt that he & his son Justin will be travelling to NYC to be interviewed by Sean Hannity. That interview will air this Sunday night on Hannity's America. Make sure you tune in. This is the first public in the public unravelling of John Murtha.
Let's hope this is the first big step in John Murtha's slow march into retirement. The people of America need it. The voters of PA-12 certainly need a politician who isn't corrupt.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. Here's a portion of the email I got from Darryl Sharratt:
According to James Culp, Hannity is dying to get this interview. Culp has the impression Justin is a "favorite" of Hannity. We have been assured by the Hannity group, Justin will get the opportunity to tell his experiences about Haditha.James Culp traveled with the Sharratts to NYC for the interview. I'm hoping that Mr. Hannity lets Justin speak his mind about John Murtha.
Frankly, I can't wait for America to learn that the Sharratts couldn't turn to their congressman for help as they went through this traumatic experience. They couldn't turn to their congressman because John Murtha is their representative. Ironic doesn't begin to describe it.
Originally posted Wednesday, October 10, 2007, revised 12-Oct 4:47 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 11-Oct-07 08:40 AM
Gary,
Why don't the Marines give a damn about fighting in the "central front in the War on Terror?"
They're pushing to leave Iraq and be redeployed to Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Truth, The Whole Truth & Nothing But The Truth
That's the standard that should apply to our employees in Washington, DC. That certainly isn't the standard that John Murtha holds himself up to, though. After Lt. Col. Paul Ware recommended that the murder charges be dropped against SSgt. Frank Wuterich, people are noticing this glaring deficiency in Murtha :
Recall Haditha. In the spring of 2006, Rep. John Murtha said that Pentagon sources had told him Marines there had murdered 24 Iraqis "in cold blood" and that the cover-up of the November 2005 massacre "goes right up the chain of command." It was, for a season, the "event" that told ever so many all they needed to know about what was wrong in Iraq. Murtha said it happened because our forces are stretched too thin. It was going to be this war's My Lai, a dark incantation summing up the whole rotten mess, a one-word dirge of our immediate disgrace and inevitable defeat. Haditha, Haditha, Haditha!That's the polite way of saying that John Murtha either (a) didn't know what he was talking about, (b) knew what he said wasn't factual and said them anyway or (c) all of the above. Right now, I'm leaning towards B. I think that John Murtha knew that the facts didn't support his accusations. I further think that Murtha said those things to get the House Majority Leader's position.
All that was missing were...actual facts, completed investigations and court proceedings.
Further proof that Murtha manufactured this out of whole cloth is Murtha's own conflicting stories about the coverup. When he first made these accusations, he said that that the cover-up of the November 2005 massacre "goes right up the chain of command." That presumably meant President Bush and Vice President Cheney. In a later interview with ABCNews' Charlie Gibson, Murtha sang a dramatically different tune :
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?Let's recap. Murtha first said, without equivocation, that the cover-up "goes right up the chain of command." That first accusation was authoritative-sounding. In this interview, Murtha backpedalled, saying that he knew "there was a cover-up someplace." That's a much less authoritative statement, one which he didn't have proof of.
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace . They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
That isn't the only part of the anti-war Left's case that's unraveling:
The U.S. military reported last week that troop deaths in Iraq went down for the fourth month in a row, and the Iraqi government reported that civilian deathsIsn't it interesting that this trend started right about the time that the Surge was fully implemented? Wouldn't you think that, considering Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's declaration that the surge had failed , that this is big news?
declined by half in September.
What to do? Well, CBS and NBC gave the new casualty figures a few sentences on their evening news programs, and the major papers played the news far from their front pages. Only ABC led with the story. In fact, the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, wondered about the short-shrift the media gave this news after four years of "continuously depressing" news. On CNN's "Reliable Sources," he asked the Washington Post's Robin Wright and CNN's Barbara Starr whether the news should have received more attention. Perish the thought, they both said; we're not sure there is a trend yet.
OK, four months is not a trend. But Kurtz then asked the obvious question: If those casualties figures had gone up, wouldn't that have made front pages? "Oh, I think inevitably it would have," replied Starr. "I mean, that...by any definition, is news."
People living inside the Washington bubble couldn't bring themselves to think it's a trend but thinking people know it's a trend when casualties decline each month for four months. That's because the information didn't fit the Bubbleheads' carefully crafted storyline. There's no way they'll admit to it after all their careful crafting.
My dad taught me that "Stupidity is what gets us in trouble; pride is what keeps us there." I'd change that slightly for this application. Here's what I'd say about Starr's being revealed: "Crafting is what got you in trouble. Denying it is keeping you in trouble." That's what happens when a correspondent's first priority is to 'change the world', not report the facts.
What's needed is a new paradigm. What's needed is for correspondents like Ms. Wright and Ms. Starr to not deny the obvious. What's needed is for them to not let the John Murthas of the world off so easy. What's needed is for the truth to be the highest priority.
That new paradigm would be John Murtha's worst nightmare.
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment 1 by Yeah, what she said! at 11-Oct-07 04:37 PM
You made some excellent points that I hope will provoke people to actually think for themselves and then voice those thoughts. If I could add my 2 cents worth, it would be: I truly believe that what we read, hear, and see on the War is only about 10% accurate and the rest, opinion-based, fabricated, "Let's tell them (us) what they should believe." BOLOGNA information. What's sad is, I think too many of us Americans allow the Media, in every form, dictate a "reality" that's far from "what is" and we sit back and just take it all in. If more of us will wake-up, get-up, and speak-up. we can foster change.
It Must've Just About killed Him
Every MOBster has known that Hugh Hewitt has had his lips in an eternal pucker on Mitt Romney's backside since writing his book about Romney. He's even cherrypicked reviews 'proving' Romney won Tuesday's debate . That's why this portion of his interview with Ted Olson must've almost killed him:
HH: Jim Dobson penned a New York Times editorial. I'm sure you're familiar with it, that if it's Rudy Giuliani, he's just sitting it out. What's your response to that, and to the idea that you can't trust Rudy with Supreme Court nominees?It must've killed Hewitt to hear such an esteemed constitutional scholar like Ted Olson say that he'd trust Rudy Giuliani more than any other presidential candidate. Hewitt's had his lips puckered on Romney's backside ever since he wrote a book about Romney's candidacy. I'll trust a man like Ted Olson over an agenda-driven man like Hugh Hewitt anytime.
TO: Well, A) you can trust Rudy with Supreme Court nominees. He's the person in America that I trust the most in connection with this. If someone wants to sit out the election because they're not satisfied with some aspect of Rudy's background or Rudy's policy, then he might as well just vote for Hillary Clinton, because that's what's going to happen. I think it's exceedingly important for
Republicans and conservatives and moderates alike to take a deep breath, if there's a high likelihood, as I think there may be, of an even greater Democratic control of both houses of Congress. A Democratic president is going to appoint Supreme Court justices, appellate court judges, and other federal judges, and increase taxes, and increase the federal spending, and doing lots of things that only a Republican president can prevent. And Rudy Giuliani, in my judgment, is the most qualified and the most electable Republican. And anybody on the conservative side that thinks they're going to sit that out, they might as well contribute to the Democratic victory, and then take responsibility for what happens, because it will be their fault.
Part of the reason why I trust Ted Olson is because of the work he did in the Florida fiasco in 2000. Another reason why I trust Ted Olson is because he's maintained his impeccable strict constructionist credentials while living in Washington, DC. That's an extraordinary statement.
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:57 PM
No comments.
Being Lazy Is Hard Work
If you think that headline doesn't make sense, consider the fact that I'm talking about Nancy Pelosi's (mis?)handling of the House schedule . Here's the Politico's take on what's holding up the process:
The new House majority has a different operating philosophy, one that requires more meetings. A lot more. "We do have an enormous number," said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). "There are a lot of meetings," agreed Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).This is inexcusable when you consider the fact that the House hasn't even debated the FY2008 appropriations bills . It's more inexcusable when you consider the fact that we're almost 2 weeks into FY2008. Here's something that the NRCC and RNC should sieze upon:
The large number of meetings says something about the kind of inclusive regime Pelosi intends to build. It also drives staffers nuts. One leadership aide said that Pelosi schedules meetings to talk about the agenda for the next meeting, leaving no time to get anything done. Those complaints fall on the deaf ears of members of Congress not forced to attend.
With that longer schedule, though, lawmakers often have only the weekend to spend back in their districts. For those with long commutes, it can be even less. And for freshman members, it's a particularly sensitive issue because the first reelection fight tends to be the most difficult.These freshmen and other vulnerable incumbents will find it's even more difficult campaigning when they haven't done anything this session. This group rode to power saying that they'd clean up Washington and get things done.
Thus far, they're long on congressional oversight, aka Democratic witch hunts into the Bush administration, and extremely short on passing legislation. They came in with high expectations. That's why their approval rating is Nixonesque. Here's another reason why people don't have a high opinion of Democrats :
By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the "mother" of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don't know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag, and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.It isn't surprising that people get nervous when a Democrat starts using subjective terms in conjunction with taxes. In fact, that's dog bites man stuff. It'd be news if a Democrat didn't use fairness and equity in conjunction with tax codes.
The classic Washington guessing game is frustrating anxious corporate lobbyists but amusing others, including the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who started it all. "It is surprising how nervous people get when I use the words 'fairness' and 'equity' to describe our efforts to simplify the tax code and encourage economic investment," the New York Democrat told Politico.
Whichever way you slice it, a $1 trillion tax increase will hurt the economy. Any time Democrats start using terms like fairness and equity with regards to taxes, it's time to grab your wallets.
That's just one of the reasons why it's crucial to retake the House and retain the White House. It's also important to keep the White House because that's the only way we'll nominate judges who'll interpret the Constituation instead of writing unalterable legislation. Retaining the White House is the only way we can be certain that we'll fight the War against Civilization without having both arms tied behind our back.
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:32 PM
No comments.
As Low As It Gets
Jim Ogonowski is running in a special election to win the seat currently held by Marty Meehan. Earlier today, former Rep. Chester Atkins accused Ogonowski of racism because of his position on illegal immigration. That isn't all Atkins did:
Former Rep. Chester G. Atkins, who once held the congressional seat being sought by Republican Jim Ogonowski, said today the candidate is tarnishing the legacy of his late brother, John, with a stance against illegal immigration that borders on racist.The Ogonowski campaign didn't waste time hitting back:
Jim Ogonowski responded by calling the charge "a new low in politics," while Peg Ogonowski, the widow of John Ogonowski, said she was never aware her late husband had met Atkins.It's safe to say that Atkins just stepped in it. How would he know if John Ogonowski's legacy is being tarnished by his brother, especially if Atkins hadn't met John Ogonowski? I'm thankful that Peg Ogonowski spoke out about this. It's despicable that a retired politician is attempting to make political points by using a genuine American hero to push a political agenda.
I've seen some despicable things done in political campaigns but this is the worst thing I've ever seen. Here's Atkins' feeble attempt at defense:
Atkins, a Concord Democrat who lost his 1992 re-election campaign in part because of a backlash over his support for Cambodian refugees resettling in his Merrimack Valley district, said John Ogonowski was an avid backer of his efforts because of his family's heritage as Polish immigrants.Rep. Atkins obviously didn't notice that those Cambodian refugees, like the Polish immigrants from which the Ogonowskis came from, were legal immigrants. That's a difference that most people would notice. Only spineless Republicans and corrupt Democrats would lump illegal and legal immigrants together.
Jim Ogonowski replied: "The Cambodian refugees are here 100 percent legally. There's no comparison between them and illegal aliens. One are law-abiding people living the American Dream. The other are breaking the law...We cannot reward criminals, we cannot give amnesty for those who have broken laws, but have to remain a beacon of hope for those who come here legally."It's time that Rep. Atkins got off the stage and stopped injecting John Ogonowski's name into a tight political race. What he's doing is despicable. It's time for Massachusetts voters to take that into account when they enter the voting booth this Tuesday. They shouldn't reward this type of muckraking with their votes.
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:11 PM
No comments.
Life in the Land of Delusion
Earlier tonight, I saw the film clips of Jimmy Carter's interview with Wolf Blitzer . To say that Jimmy Carter was his usual nutty self doesn't tell the whole story. Let me illustrate with this particularly delusional exchange:
BLITZER: Let's get to the book shortly; let's talk about some of the issues on the agenda. Right now, Republican presidential candidates, including Giuliani, making the suggestion that if Democrats are elected to the White House, U.S. national security will suffer. Here's what Giuliani says: "If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back to our pre-September 11 mentality on being on defense." WhatWhat planet does this guy live on? Is he even from this solar system? We sure got hit alot for " protecting our interests around the world ":
do you want to say to Rudy Giuliani?
CARTER: Well, I thought on pre-September 11 that George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were in charge.
I think, during the Clinton years, we kept our country safe, we protected out interests around the world, we were admired by almost everyone on earth , and we were free. And we were also out of a war. So I think that history has shown that the Democrats are just as firm and staunch on security as are the Republicans. It ought to be a non-partisan issue, and it's a ridiculous thing for Giuliani to be making a claim of that kind.
Terrorist Acts Suspected of or Inspired by al-QaedaJust counting the people killed in the Khobar Towers, the East African Embassies and the USS Cole, al-Qa'ida killed 260 of our best and brightest. It's worth asking Jimmy Carter why he thinks that that's protecting our interests around the world. I know why "we were admired by almost everyone on earth." It's because we took the pacifist approach.
1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
Here's another startling exchange:
BLITZER: But basically, what I hear you saying is, from your perspective, on the issue of national security, there's really not much of a difference between the Republican front runners.First, saying that the Baker-Hamilton commission "one of the finest blue-ribbon commissions ever established in this country" is faint praise. Can anyone name a commission that did any valuable work? I ask because I can't think of any commissions that did anything valuable in the last 15 years.
CARTER: That's exactly right. I think the Democrats, basically, want to see the Lee Hamilton and the James Baker recommendation, one of the finest blue-ribbon commissions ever established in this country, unanimously recommended what we should do about Iraq.
BLITZER: The Iraq Study Group.
CARTER: Yes. And the Democrats are basically for that; the Republicans threw it in the waste basket and said, We don't want that, we want to be much more militant, stay in Iraq indefinitely, and maybe invade or attack Iran, and I think that's the startling difference between the two.
Secondly and more importantly, Republicans have never said that they want to "maybe invade or attack Iran". I don't recall any Republicans stating that they want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely, at least in the sense of being on the offensive. It's true that we'd like to maintain a military presence in Iraq because it gives us greater capability in the region.
It's amazing that Blitzer let Carter get away with that type of misinformation, too.
BLITZER: On the scale of, you know, historic precedents and historic blunders, from your perspective, what kind of blunder was the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein?He simply can't admit that his handling of the hostage crisis was the most embarrassing foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. Instead of issuing an ultimatum that we'd retaliate if the hostages weren't released immediately, instead he reached out to Khomeini as a "great man of God."
CARTER: Among the preeminent blunders of American history. It was predicated on false claims, deliberate or not, I don't know. It was incorrectly consummated and perpetuated. The claims of what, how easy it would be were wrong. And I think everyone, just about everyone agrees that the whole war in Iraq has been carried out with a series of blunders.
BLITZER: Some suggest it is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Are you among those?
CARTER: I would put it almost on an equal basis with Vietnam, yes. Those two in my lifetime certainly would be the worst two blunders.
Jimmy Carter has been called the worst president in hostory, the direct result of his mishandling of the Iran Hostage Crisis. I certainly won't disagree with that opinion.
Unfortunately, he's a worse ex-president than he was president. That's saying alot.
Posted Friday, October 12, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment 1 by I.M. Small at 13-Oct-07 11:06 AM
LIBERTIES FORSAKEN
Lower the flags upon their masts
Because the war~s enthusiasts
Have killed--by their vituperative blasts
Of malice and of slander--
Feeling of common bond:
Their lack of candor
Crossed loyalty beyond.
Salute no more the flying rag,
The home team's colors for to brag,
Which used it for a garbage bag:
With slander and with malice
My countrymen did let
Their hearts turn callous,
Liberties to forget.
Fighting the Terrorists On the Cheap?
According to this article , Rahm Emanuel thinks that spending $200 billion to stabilize Iraq is wasteful spending. This should remove all doubt that Democrats don't get it when it comes to stabilizing the region after ridding it of a major source of instability.
"Republicans say there's excessive spending. We agree. Two-hundred billion [dollars] for Iraq is excessive," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.If Emanuel thinks that it's excessive, then why hasn't he done more to stop funding the war? The reality is that this is pure political gamesmanship. This is meant to raise money for next year's campaign. That statement was meant for inside the Beltway types. Like John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel talks the talk before doing nothing. He's a cheap political hack from the Clinton administration. Politicians like Emanuel are a dime a dozen. You can buy them anywhere.
Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto Democratic spending bills that come in higher than the budget numbers he has set.
It's worth noticing that he doesn't have a solution for killing the jihadists. That's another trait he shares with other linguini-spined Defeatocrats.
Republicans say they are eager and ready for any debate about how much is being spent on the war. But they say Pelosi is turning to a financial debate because the case against the surge and for troop withdrawal is losing steam because of the success they cite in Iraq.Conditions on the ground have changed, resulting in a change in public opinion. Howard Kurtz even nailed Barbara Starr and Robin Wright on whether a trend had started to emerge :
"There hasn't been much more than a whisper on Iraq," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "That's a recognition of success on the ground."
The U.S. military reported last week that troop deaths in Iraq went down for the fourth month in a row, and the Iraqi government reported that civilian deaths declined by half in September.Democrats are losing their biggest issue in animating the Nutroots because they're all talk and no action. It's becoming obvious that the major candidates don't share a common vision with the Nutroots, that they're only pandering to them to make it through the primaries. If they shared the Nutroots' vision, Hillary and Obama wouldn't have said that it might not be possible to get the troops out of Iraq until 2013.
What to do? Well, CBS and NBC gave the new casualty figures a few sentences on their evening news programs, and the major papers played the news far from their front pages. Only ABC led with the story. In fact, the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, wondered about the short-shrift the media gave this news after four years of "continuously depressing" news. On CNN's "Reliable Sources," he asked the Washington Post's Robin Wright and CNN's Barbara Starr whether the news should have received more attention. Perish the thought, they both said; we're not sure there is a trend yet.
OK, four months is not a trend. But Kurtz then asked the obvious question: If those casualties figures had gone up, wouldn't that have made front pages? "Oh, I think inevitably it would have," replied Starr. "I mean, that,by any definition, is news."
And while Pelosi rejected the tax, she did nothing to disavow the other tactic announced at the same time by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.): a vow to refuse any more money for the war until Bush changes course.Obey will become roadkill if he doesn't change course. Polling shows that the American people overwhelmingly trust the military to make decisions on when to leave Iraq. By insisting that on legislating change, Obey is telling the American people that he's ignoring them. He's acting like the elitist that he is.
The Democrats are talking down to the American people, something that drives voters away. Since regaining the majority, they've taken opportunity after opportunity to tell the American people that Washington politicians know better. That's why Al Gore lost in 2000. That's why John Kerry lost in 2004. That's why House Democrats won't seal the deal this election. Their bluster is endangering their majority.
That's why I'd love to see them get a bigger megaphone. The more people hear them, the faster they'll sink in the polls.
Posted Friday, October 12, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 13-Oct-07 03:15 PM
Gary,
Does retired Gen. Rick Sanchez have BDS too?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12cnd-general.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192306146-dBmzEO3dpnfrJ1xJ9QBh8A
He said that the United States is "living through a nightmare with no end in sight" in Iraq and called the surge a "desperate move" that will not lead to long-term stability.
"After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.
