DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! -13.... How High can this go???
I just love reading Coulter....
There is a big difference though between then and now.
In Vietnam our betrayal of the South Vietnamese didn't have the consequences in the short term to our physical security.
Today the betrayal of Iraq will have immediate consequences at home Al Queada and Hamass(Iran) will take this as a green light to escalate there time table for attacks inside the US.
The last time the Dems were allowed to cut and run took years to mushroom into an attack against us directly. This time the attacks will come quickly anmd the mushroom may be a cloud.
Pelousy & Greid?
Back to the camelias Mike.
M Ike wrote:
If we had a "news" media that was a fair arbiter of the political scene and dedicated to providing the information necessary to inform the American voter you might think a flip-flop of this proportion and in such a short period of time would be bigger news than just an obscure report on Bloomberg.com.
We've had four years of uncritical reporting of Bush and his 'war on terror'. We've had the President provided all the troops, money and authority to wage war he asked for.
And yet even George admits 'we aren't winning'.
And somehow it's the Democrats fault things have gone sideways.
Nope.
Sorry Ann. Sorry Mike.
I've just come from the Camellia patch "Arthur." Time for you to go back under your rock.
Troll: Right you are. The libs ended up sending millions of South East Asians to a ghastly grave, but other than the waves of boat people there were few short term effects on the U.S. The long term crippling of U.S. ability to lead and defend freedom was bad enough.
It would be much worse this time.
Great article Mike.
Troll is exactly right, North Vietnam was not dedicated to the destruction of the USA - the radical Jihadist Muslims are! We can accept nothing less than vistory in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else we chose to carry the war.
The Dems are playing with fire and have not the wit to recognize the danger.
Old Soldier: It amazes me that anyone in high political office who recalls the damage and aftermath of Vietnam would be so eager to repeat that disaster.
I guess it shows they are more interested in power than protecting the American people.
Arthur, misrepresenting the truth again, I see.
We have had 4 years of the media misreporting everything, unfortunately. They constantly reported NOTHING was going right and even during the operational part of the war, the embedded reporters qwuetioned the legality of the war even as they were riding along with the troops.
The end result of that misreporting is that the enemy was emboldened and knew eventually the U.S. public would tire of all the bad news (and not hearing any of the good news happening), so they kept attacking realizing that the media was their friend and they would win the propaganda war with their help. We see ample evidence of this in how CNN wants to show our troops being snipered on terrorist made tape but yet balks at showing Saddam Hussein's execution.
So, the surrender monkeys have accomplished much. They turned the public against the war through their media arm. Good going.
You really should not lie so much.
The Democrats showed their the Cut & Run Party, they are done in 2008.. 
Until next Wednesday evening, no one outside of the President's small circle knows what the President will do with the troop situation in Iraq.
It is amusing to see and hear the all-knowing Dems telling the Commander in Chief that he cannot send more troops all the while telling the American people they will not do anything to change the way the Iraq War is managed or financed.
Great article Mike. It was wonderful to read Coulter's article as well!
I might remind some good Democrats did in the 40's with Harry Truman(Really man of a kind) with the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I read a lot about the history between the Democrats and Republicans and now it's all up-side-down! Democrats became the blockheads and the Republicans seem to get smarter. Anyway, the public will understand till the President Election that the Democrats are like a rooster without a head!
P.S: Have you read about the article in Sunday Times about Israel's Nuclear test? Seems to be that rumors are getting to fast to articles.... shame!
Yom tov, Mike!
What it boils down to is that if the President is for it they are against it even if they were for it to begin with. That goes for anything in addition to issues related to the war. A large portion of their agenda is to oppose Bush no matter how many times they have to flip or flop.
Why my comment was deleted? 
Saar: Comments are moderated now. When your comment is succesfully posted a message to that effect appears at the top of the screen and also announces that it is awaiting moderation (my approval before appearing). It's the best way to keep the hatemongers from pissing all over the page.
I saw the article in the London Times about an Israeli nuclear strike on the Iranians:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2535310,00.html
I give it about as much credence as the articles last year suggesting that Israel would strike Iran on March 28, 2006. Didn't happen did it?
Ken: There's a classic Pelosi Soundbite that I wish I had an audio for. She's asked what the Democrat plan is for Social Security and these other issues. She starts "We don't.. (presumably is going to say "we don't have a plan" but stops and continues)OUR PLAN is to stop him. Stop President Bush. He must be stopped!"
That's pretty much all the plan the Democrats have had for anything the last six years and it won't cut it when they control both houses of the legislative branch.
But you can count on their friends in the media to sweep that total lack of any credible program or policy under the rug with the rest of the Democrat detritus.
So True Mike!
I hope I can get more of the conservatives from another blog over here. You really hit that nail hard! 
Great article, Mike, and belated Happy New Year. I got my modem and my notebook back up and running so I'm back in the saddle... haven't posted anything yet, but just moseyed over to see what you're up to!
Those lying Dems and the blind idiots who love them... back to their MOs.
Thanks Athleing and Dcat. And I will keep hitting those nails hard Dcat, even if I don't partner up with Jimmy Carter at Habitat for Humanity.
um look out for a lefty loon called David Mathews
W.F. wrote:
We have had 4 years of the media misreporting everything, unfortunately. They constantly reported NOTHING was going right and even during the operational part of the war, the embedded reporters qwuetioned the legality of the war even as they were riding along with the troops.
Nonsense. The President asked for and received EVERYTHING he wanted in waging this war on Iraq from a republican congressover the past four years
He now admits we aren't winning.
It's his fault. His own incompetence and that of his trusted advisers trumps all. The failure of this mission has nothing to do with the reporting and everything to do with the folly of the enterprise itself.
Why do you misrepresent the facts W.F.?
Sorry.
"Arthur" Do we need to perform a community intervention so you can finally get psychiatric help? You're reality challenged outlook is surely a hazard to your mental well being.
Dcat: There was a David Matthews that lived across the street from me when I was growing up. He was a big, fat, obnoxious, ignorant slob who never amounted to anything.
I wonder if it's the same person?
Catch the IP address!
Go to this topic at Sound Politics
Wouldn't that be a hoot if it was!?
So according to Ann Coulter, the US losing in Vietnam in the 1970s was all the democrats fault? Makes me wonder why the US elects a President of one political party but the Congress and Senate could be controlled by another party. Is that what you called 'checks and balances' or a dumb gridlock system.
Gaffa: I'm sure my readers will forgive you for your ignorance regarding the American political system under our Constitution.
It would be unfair to expect a video-game programmer in the UK to have an understanding of political issues above that of the average U.S. High School freshman.
But if you HAD a sense of history above that level, you would know that the disaster which followed the complete pullout of U.S. troops in Vietnam occurred ONLY after Democrats in Congress demanded it and had the Constitutional clout to enforce their wishes.
Now, is there any other aspect of the most successful Constitutional and Economic system ever devised by man that I can explain to you?
Ah Mike - I appreciate the explanation but you missed my point. I'm not saying that the Democrats weren't involved in the decision to abandon Vietnam to the Viet-Cong. Although I gather Nixon did order the troops home.
What I am saying is that it is a pretty flawed system that allows a lame duck President not to make any real decisions. A bit like Clinton in his last term and well - like Dubya now I guess.
btw I'm not a programmer.
Also you could argue that the British Empire was the most successful Empire to date. Still I guess Dubya hasn't finished collecting countries yet. Anyhow I believe the UK, which also has a two party democracy has some serious flaws as well.
Coulter's reminder bears repeating:
They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents."
The left is so predictable--using euphemisms to mask the truth!
Gaffa: Oh, so you just PLAY video games for a living?
I didn't miss your point at all. But neither do I feel compelled to validate it.
Your comparisons to empire are as misguided as much of what I have come to expect from you. Anyone who can compare our foreign relations to the colonial dictatorship exercised by Britain at the height of it's age of empire is smoking something not legal.
Looks like someone followed me over. May have changed the name.
DCAT: Gaffa is one of the Eurosocialists. I doubt he masquerades as a Matthews.
Nope - I'm a Project Manager. You know there are more roles within videogame companies beyond Programmers and testers Mike. There are also artists, designers, audio, scriptwriters and so on. Happy to educate you though. Nice tangent though. Btw - What do you do for a living? Do you earn money by writing books, taking snaps or landscaping gardening?
I mentioned the British Empire in reply to your note about the US being the most successful Constitutional and Economic system ever - as if it is beyond criticism. Judging by your moans about how bad things are - then it seems to me the US, like any country, has room for improvement.
Which leads me back to the question you are ducking. Are you happy with the setup that a President can be completely gridlocked by Senate and Congress for years on end?
So basically you DO sit around and play video games all day!
And no. Though frustrating from time to time, most conservatives, myself included are happy with the checks and balances of the American system.
The less government does the better.
However, the President is Commander in Chief with sole responsibility for directing the military.
btw - if it wasn't for that Colonial dictatorship - there would be no United States, no pilgrims and no founding fathers - at least no Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe etc.
It might have been possible that the French and Spanish colonies might have combined by warfare or sold out to create a nation that stretched across North America. Certainly no English language, democracy and legal system similar to ours.
In all probability the US would be similar to South America today - lots of countries, speaking Spanish or Portuguese and continually having dictatorships, coups and economic crises.
Thank GOD that didn't happen we would have been up a creek without a paddle!
Welfare you mean!
See Mike God knows what he is doing!
Now we have Satan here to really try and screw things up!
Recognize it!
Mike typed:
However, the President is Commander in Chief with sole responsibility for directing the military.
Which fact explains the debacle in Iraq.
Perhaps you need a new dictionary "Arthut" But Iraq is a debacle only in the fevered brains of those whose soul objective is the neutering of the U.S. military and overall ability of the U.S. to lead the world to a better, safer and freer future.
But while we are on the subject, the continuing violence in Iraq, even though the death toll is below the body count during the heyday of Saddam, is due in large part to the nitwits like you who didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people until it became a political issue.
You folks are the best friend of monsters around the world. Hitler would be proud.
Mike wrote:
Perhaps you need a new dictionary "Arthut" But Iraq is a debacle only in the fevered brains of those whose soul objective is the neutering of the U.S. military and overall ability of the U.S. to lead the world to a better, safer and freer future.
Tell George. After years of telling us 'we're winning' and 'mission accomplished' even he has to admit we aren't, in fact winning.
He added:
But while we are on the subject, the continuing violence in Iraq, even though the death toll is below the body count during the heyday of Saddam, is due in large part to the nitwits like you who didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people until it became a political issue.
Not true. I wasn't very happy when your hero RR backed Iraq in their gruesome and wasteful war with Iran.
Sorry.
Do those nitwits include Donald Rumsfeld?
"Do those nitwits include Donald Rumsfeld?"
No!
And unless you can come up with some evidence that Donald Rumseld or President Reagan were as unsympathetic for the plight of the Iraqi people as you and Arthur clearly are, then I will tell you the same thing I told him: SHUT UP!
Both you and "Arthur" live in perpetual fantasy worlds. Yours is centered around video games and "Arthurs" in the abstractions of modern art.
Throw in a few Hollywood types and you guys would capture the market among the reality challenged.
Check this 'fantasy world' out
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Coulter and Mike's America nail this quirk of Democratic behavior.
It looks as though the Dems are planning to put on the Senate floor a non-binding bill that states their opposition to President Bush's plan of sending more troops to help the Iraqi government effectively deal with terrorists.
Gotta love President Bush all the more for standing his ground, and ignoring the garbage coming out of the DNC. This is the hallmark of a leader - a foreign quality to Dems and their liberal supporters.
Of course not, Gaffa. But your name is high on the list.
-------------------------------
Do those nitwits include Donald Rumsfeld?
Gaffa: Do I REALLY need to repeat myself?
You folks are constantly stamping your feet and demanding we talk to Iran, talk to Syria, talk to every two bit tin horn dictator in the world.
Rummy talked to Hussein in the 1980's and you're stamping your feet complaining about that!
Again, if you have some CREDIBLE evidence that Rummy participated or aquiesced in Saddam's crimes against humanity, put it up. Otherwise, SHUT THE HELL UP.
Living in a fantasy world is no excuse for ignorance.
When did I say that you should talk to Iran or Syria?
And I didn't say Rumsfeld participated or aquiesced in Saddam's crimes. But I do believe he 'didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people until it became a political issue.'
Don't you agree?
No, I believe YOU folks didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people until it became a political issue.
So unless you are going to provide me with unimpeachable documentation to show your support for the Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Shiites in pre-invasision Iraq, I'd advise you to put a sock in it.
So are you claiming the below from the early 80s is untrue?
"The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters."
"The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan."
"Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting."
As for myself - I would put the lives of British serviceman and women over that of the people outside Europe unless it was for the defence of our country. What is breath-taking is the hypocrisy of US and UK policy regarding Iraq over the last 40 years. Has the been a dramatic U-turn or is the sudden concern for the Iraqi people just a thinly veiled disguise to so with ensuring oil stability within the Middle Eat.
Again... You're not arguing any valid point.
Again, show me where YOU have ever showed prior concern for the Iraqi people.
Again, you're just playing games.
Because you don't agree with my point doesn't make it invalid.
I repeat - Rumsfeld and US policy didn't show particular concern for the Iraqi people until it became politically useful to do so.
Again, as for myself - well how can anyone out of the public eye, show such concern? When Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam I was 11. lol. Was I supposed to show concern by joining the peace corps. And I answered your question - I'm not even claiming to show compassion for the Iraqi people. I don't think we should of gone in there in the first place and I think we should get out now. If the US believes in democracy then give the Iraqi people a straight referendum on whether they want US and UK soldiers to go or stay. Vietnam was only able to heal when Nixon pulled the troops out.
Howabout yourself Mike, what did YOU have ever showed prior concern for the Iraqi people?
When you were 11 I was already running statewide campaigns.
And until you can offer me proof that Rumsfeld was indifferent to the sufferings of the Iraqi people I will repeat that your suppositions have absolutely no foundation except your own fantasies and anti-American prejudices.
Stop playing games Gaffuk. There are lives at stake.
So during those party polical campaigns you ran as a kid - where did you show concern for the Iraqi people?
I've already posted incriminating evidence of Rumsfeld preference to oil and middle Eastern politics over genuine concern for the Iraqi people during the early 80s.
Commenting by HaloScan
