The “facts” that you have remain a Koolaid drink.
Yeah, once again it is because “we republicans say so”, of course I know that the media will show again their true colors and talk more about the democrats suffering more, but after the last election I think it is a losing talking point for the Republicans.
No telling how much more the people would have decided to trust the Democrats more, even on national defense issues, last November without all that baggage they’re carrying, huh?
You don’t think an attack would do far more hurt to the fortunes of those whose *job * it was to protect us from them, but failed? Especially if their claim to a superior ability to do so was the primary reason they still had those jobs anyway?
Gorblimey. Tell us more about being “ideologically blinded”. :rolleyes:
I hope you’re right. Which means, in my woeful experience, that you’re probably wrong.
Really? Howzabout that guy, whathisface, the one who got more votes than GeeDubya? Presumably, he doesn’t qualify in the EO bestiary as “openly far-left”
Not even a “committed liberal”, it would seem.
Oh, woe is us! Doom! Doom! The recent elections were but a chimera, a shimmering desert mirage! I only hope I can see clearly enough through my bitter tears to fill out this Republican registration form!
Hey, got it from Evil One! Who has been so clearly right on so many, many topics. No, no, an approval rate of 30% is a *good * thing, and all these scandals just garner sympathy for the Bushiviks. And soon, soon, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith will be recognized as saviors of thier country! And monkeys will fly out by butt, and then they will register as Republican.
Whaddaya smokin, EO? Jimson weed?
Fair question. Evil One, tell us, what *have * you been right about recently, in contrast to our poor, benighted “reality-based community”? *Which * of your recent political prognostications has turned out to be true?
Of course, that would mean a de facto admission that everyrhing the Republicans have been telling us about Iraq has been wrong.
And they have such a good record of admitting failure and taking responsibility.
ok, little help from the teemings - can we get a consensus on how many troops are stationed in Iraq now?
Whaddaya mean “admitting failure and taking responsibility”? They haven’t failed, it is only that they have not yet suceeded! See, there’s the trouble with liberals, bitterly pessimistic while simultaneously naive Pollyannas.
I’m indulging in a bit of two-bit psychology, but I think GeeDubya really believes it. No, really! I think he *genuinely * believes that one more surge, one more Friedman Unit, and it will all turn around! Sunni and Shia and Kurd will dance around the oil derrick Maypole, holding hands and singing “Kumballah”! And when he gives another speech before an adoring Congress, they will leap up from thier chairs to interrupt him every five words with standing ovations, until half of them collapse in cardiac infarctions, their last whispered words adoration for The Leader…
These are the tormented dreams as he weeps into his pillow… And it is better than he deserves.
If only the Baker-Hamilton Commission had recognized Bush’s emotional age, used reverse psychology, and recommended an escalation instead of this wussy diplomacy stuff his Poppy likes. Then Bush might have withdrawn instead, just to show* he’s* The Decider.
wring, this looks right, as of March 14:
cool, thanks, so 2/3 of 141000 = 94000, leaving 47000 in Iraq by August 1 2008. Sound about right?
That will be said by those who disagree with the Republicans. People who agree with them will view the attack as the result of left-of-center folks to “stand in the way” of security measures. The truth, of course, will lie somewhere in the middle.
This subject was discussed in another thread that referenced the perceived notion that Democrats are perceived as weak on national security issues. If a democrat is elected and a 9/11 scale attack follows, it will be devastating to the democrats.
Of course this time it will be the democrats who will be trying to blame the previous administration instead of the republicans, but the rhetoric will be the same. Only the speakers will have reversed the nametags.
Good enough.
Terms of bet have been settled privately, if US troops in Iraq are reduced to a level below 2/3 of current (about 47,000) by August 1, 2008, I loose the bet, but the nation wins. If troops aren’t reduced to about 47 k, I win the bet, the nation looses.
(edited to add August 1, 2008 :smack: )
I hope you win your bet, but damnit, stop with looses!
Lose = opposite of win
Loose = opposite of tight
GAH!
sorry - I’m just used to winning. 
I’d rather she *lose * the bet.
And the nation win.
Gore ran as a moderate, luci. You didn’t hear him bandying about income redistribution, universal health care or any other issues of “socialism lite”.
Like McGovern? Carter? Mondale? Dukakis? Carter managed to get narrowly elected post-watergate. Clinton is the only Democrat to have any success since then and he can thank Ross Perot for his first term. Clinton was also smart enough to talk like a moderate to get re-elected.
And yes, Bush can thank Ralph Nader for the White House. But Gore was rejected in red states for not being moderate enough and rejected by Nadar voters for not being liberal enough. Such is the box that traps the modern democratic party.
Don’t get too excited over some local elections swinging your way due to war fatigue and a rare moment of national cooperation by the democrats to nominate more moderate candidates and present a moderate national message. Presidential elections are a different animal.
As an aside, congress is now the democrats to lose. If they stay calm and don’t propose stuff that won’t fly, they could stay in power for awhile. And part of me hopes they do. I agree with some of the things that the Democrats were advocating.
You can do the work if you like, Elvis. If you find one that was wrong, I’ll issue a mea culpa to not being able to fortell the future with one hundred percent accuracy.
One that will be easy for you…I maintained pre-Foley that the Republicans would narrowly retain power in both houses of congress. Once the Foley scandal broke, I changed my mind.
me, too. I just don’t think it’ll happen.
By the way, I expect those troop totals to be reduced primarily to reduce electoral vulnerability. Yes, I am that cynical.