It's absurd.

Tonight, BEST LINE:

Dick:  "No, that's not what I said Chris, I didn't say that..."(he clearly had said whatever it was about the war that he was claiming to have not said)

Tweety:  "We have cameras."

Mudcat:  "hahahahahahahahahaha"

Nice.

Matthews looks insane when he laughs.

Funny, all of Allen's people have a nickname too. Tucker 'Dick' Watkins, etc.

You can count on that being another strategy Allen will use--"Webb supports the Senate bill, the Senate bill is 'amnesty', therefore Webb is for amnesty'".

He also tried the old tired-and-true Republican "but hes a flip floper!" tactic.

Historically, voters have been happier with their own member of Congress than with Congress as a whole. But compared with the fall of 2002, there has been a nine-point increase in the percentage of voters who say they do not want their own U.S. representative reelected. Currently, 28% say this compared with 19% in October 2002. The largest increases in anti-incumbent sentiment are seen among moderate and liberal Republicans (up 15 points, to 25% today), and among independents (up 13 points, to 36%).

Oliver North (R) demonstrated a gross lack of honesty, so Webb chose to support Robb (D).  Not only did he support Robb, but he took the lead in gathering together a group of vets and making a public announcement to do so.

Subsequently the D's were irresponsible with regard to the USS Cole, and Webb supported Allen (R) and Bush (R).

And Allen (R) and Bush (R) failed to demonstrate leadership  by sending troops to war irresponsibly, and dishonestly. 

Remember that one of Webb's core principles is that you take care of your people.  And taking care of people is a D value.  If any D or R fails to take care of his/ her people, then I trust that Webb won't ignore it or excuse it.

Allen will no doubt also say Webb is a 'liberal'. As Bill Clinton once said, its kind of the Republicans Golden Oldey.

My guess is that they don’t think the swift boat route will work but they can made the waffler thing work. This will be a recurring theme until it is smacked down hard. Mudcat, Jarding, et al, should have a counter attack ready next time.

Based on just this little preview, I'd be that Allen's team does everything possible to link Webb to "liberal Democratic Senators who want to protect abortion, destory our family values, bring in immigrants to ruin communities, etc."  They'll link him to Kerry - who isn't really a liberal compared to some Senators, but who won't necessarily have the best rep among moderate independents and "liberal Republicans" in Virginia - and try to push him as under the control of the national party, as opposed to his own man.  I'd like to see Webb out there with some of the most conservative Dems in some of Virginia's more conservative regions, so we can counter that "liberal" attack.

Here we go!  It's time to get excited, because this is the main event, and it's going to be a good one!

I see you're point though. Maybe you're thinking of Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Baucus, and Byrd.

I hope you're not suggesting Joementum, however.

Nelson, Byrd, and Landrieu are all excellent centrists to have campaign for Webb.

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, we would have never been in position to capture or kill Al-Zarqawi, Who was THE AL-QAEDA operative in Iraq;

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, the battleground in the global war on terrorisim would be fought in the streets of Fairfax and Arlington instead of the alleyways of Ramadi, Fallujah, and Baghdad;

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, the jihadist movement would sense weakness in the US position--declare victory in Iraq--and it would start to move aggressively against US interests worldwide, therefore expanding the war on terrorisim;

Jim Webb has failed to lay out a vision for stopping the jihadist movement dead in its tracks, the Democrat vision of simply doing nothing to stop the jihadists invites swift defeat of all freedom loving people. Does Jim Webb still fail to realize that we are truly in the middle of a global war on jihadisim?

Sincerely, Wayne J. Ozmore, Jr., Chairman
4th Congressional District Republican Committee
__________________________________________________

Expecting this gentleman to employ the adjective "Democratic" to modify the word "Party" instead of incorrectly using the noun "Democrat" is expecting too much.

But what can you expect from the "Republic Party"?

Taking a nation to war on faulty information definitely is irresponsible and multipled the jihadist movement many times over.

"You don't buy the argument that it didn't used to be about terrorism and al-Qaeda but that now it is?

I think the tragedy in my view of Iraq is that it has created a lot more terrorists than would have existed if we hadn't gone in. I don't think it's a plus that Iraq is filled with terrorists right now. This isn't a zero-sum game like there's only X number of terrorists in the world and as a result we're going to draw them to the flytrap and kill them off. "

You can read the whole interview here (http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/sandiegotrib.htm)

Sounds fairly reasonable, no?

And if this war is about killing terrorists like Zarqawi, couldn't it have been done with an airstrike or special ops mission instead of having to invade the entire country, overstretch our troops, and deal with an endless and costly occupation?

Jim Webb fully understands we are in a war against terrorists, and he *does* have a startegy, again on his personal website.

You can read it at this link.

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/newdoctrine.htm

Its called "A New Doctrine for New Wars", he outlines a very reasonable and effective plan to go after terrorists and their allies.

I grew up in the fourth district, good to see another resident on this blog.

As far as the "jihadist movement" is concerned, obviously there is no single "jihadist movement."  So that's incorrect, right off the bat.  In fact, before we came into Iraq, there was no "jihadist movement" in Iraq at all.  It's our very presence there that stirred up resistance by Iraqi nationalists, thugs of various kinds, "dead ender" Ba'athists, and foreign "jihadists" of different stripes who have been drawn to the magnet we represent in Iraq.  If we left Iraq, that whole dynamic would go away. 

Regarding your comment on the supposed "Democrat vision of simply doing nothing to stop the jihadists," my question to you is this:  WHAT "Democratic vision of simply doing nothing to stop the jihadists?"  In fact, that's completely backwards.  Most Democrats who think Iraq was a mistake believe we should have focused on Al Qaeda, the people who attacked us on 9/11, not gotten sidetracked in Iraq.  What ever happened to Osama, "dead or alive?"  Where is he?  Why haven't we caught him?  Why aren't we putting everything we've got into tracking down this mass murderer of Americans?  Does Bush not care about him anymore?  If so, why not?  Democrats want to capture Osama, why are Republicans so weak on defending America?

1. Jim Webb has never advocated what you call a "cut and run" approach. His statements have been, " We went into Iraq precipitously, we should not leave precipitously." He has said 1 1/2- 2years is a reasonable time frame to redeploy US forces out of Iraq. Jim has also stated that the US should state in no uncertain terms that we are not going to create permanent bases in Iraq.

2. Al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian terrorist. The war in Iraq brought him there. Killing Al-Zarqawi is a needle in a haystack. Iraq was never a centerpoint for terrorist activities, but now is.

3. The war in Iraq has been a major recruiting tool for terrorists around the world.

4. Cost of Iraq war - $400 billion and counting.

Topic:  Iraq - War-Cost

Speaker:  Perle, Richard - Defense Policy Board

Date:  7/11/2002

Quote/Claim:
"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will. [Source: PBS Web site]"

Fact:
"The reconstruction of Iraq will be the most expensive aid operation since the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe after World War II...Any dreams that Iraq, which has the world's second largest oil reserves, could neatly finance its own reconstruction have evaporated due to massive debts and run-down oil infrastructure. - Reuters, 4/3/03"

I suggest you read the facts on the Iraq war and how it has greatly weakened our national security.

Here is a start- Just click "Iraq" under the topics section.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

I hope you come back here with the facts on the Iraq war, and hopefully join Jim Webb's campaign to bring real leadership to this country.

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, we would have never been in position to capture or kill Al-Zarqawi, Who was THE AL-QAEDA operative in Iraq;

Al-Zarqawi was taken out with Air power (not ground forces) exactly the way he could have been taken out several times when we had him targeted BEFORE we went into Iraq but the triggered was not pulled because the neocons needed a 'link' (although Al-Zarqawi did not align with Al-Qaeda until after we were in Iraq).

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, the jihadist movement would sense weakness in the US position--declare victory in Iraq--and it would start to move aggressively against US interests worldwide, therefore expanding the war on terrorisim;

If Jim Webb got his wish we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and our elite forces would have captured Osama Bin-Laden (instead of outsourcing the job to war lords who allowed him to escape Tora Bora). And we would have the military available for quick strikes at real terrorists sites instead of our brave fighting men and women being 135,000+ targets in Iraq. Instead the military is now streached to the breaking point and is forced to constantly 'revise' (lower) their recruiting goals and enlistment standards.

But thanks for playing...

If Jim Webb was really born fighting, why is he so willing to cut and run in Iraq?

Ignorant and ill informed, but nice use of RPV talking points.  Try to portray Jim Webb as a coward, the same way you try to portray other Veterans as cowards.  The Republican party betrays veterans every day, by gutting benefits, providing faulty resources in war zones, and by creating ignorant wars.  It's all "Semper Fi" until a Vet questions the gospel of Republicanism, then chickenhawks call them cowards.  As a Veteran, how can you support a party that's so faithless towards Veterans?

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, we would have never been in position to capture or kill Al-Zarqawi, Who was THE AL-QAEDA operative in Iraq;

Another lie.  Do you enjoy this?  You've created your "cut and run" bogeyman out of thin air, you just make it up.  How do Virginians keep electing you ignorant extremists?  Webb has called for the US to state unequivocally that we have no long-term interests in Iraq.  Hypothetically, think about it this way.  Let's say China decides George Bush presents a "clear and present" danger to Chinese security.  Under Bush's own doctrine of preemption, China occupies the US, ousts Bush and puts him on trial.  There's not an American alive who wouldn't fight to the death until the last Commie bastard was thrown out.  That's how the Iraqi's feel about the US occupation.  We're not fighting terrorists in Iraq, we're fighting people who feel occupied and want their country back.

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, the battleground in the global war on terrorism would be fought in the streets of Fairfax and Arlington instead of the alleyways of Ramadi, Fallujah, and Baghdad;

The entire context of your question shows how ignorant of the tragedy of global terrorism you actually are.  Terrorists are transnational, by occupying territory you only create targets.  The War on Terror must be fought "in the crease", between nations.  We have the technology and mobility to fight this war like a laser, surgically removing malignant cells where they appear.  Unfortunately, where a laser could work George Bush, George Allen and the extremists who run the Republican party only understand the guillotine.  They run around the world like some mad Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, screaming "Off with their heads".

The tragedy of fundamentalist extremism has already spread to England, Spain and you might recall, George Bush and George Allen allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place right her in America.  Bush was warned, amply, repeatedly, vociferously.  He went on vacation.

If Jim Webb got his wish for US Forces to leave Iraq, the jihadist movement would sense weakness in the US position--declare victory in Iraq--and it would start to move aggressively against US interests worldwide, therefore expanding the war on terrorisim;

Sense weakness?  First of all, the world already perceives America as weak thanks to the decisions of this failed president and his subservient junior Virginia Senator.  There's open warfare in the streets of Iraq with over 100,000 troops unable to control it.  George Bush and George Allen have given violent religious extremists the best example of American weakness in history, thanks to their abject failure.

Jim Webb has failed to lay out a vision for stopping the jihadist movement dead in its tracks, the Democrat vision of simply doing nothing to stop the jihadists invites swift defeat of all freedom loving people. Does Jim Webb still fail to realize that we are truly in the middle of a global war on jihadisim?

Do George Bush and George Allen fail to realize that the American presence in Iraq is seen as a greater threat to security in the Middle East than Iran's nuclear program?  The idea that Jim Webb is ignorant of any aspect of foreign policy is as much of an insult as the idea that George Allen is somehow "independent" enough to run for President.

Sincerely, Wayne J. Ozmore, Jr., Chairman
4th Congressional District Republican Committee

Thanks for stopping by, and trying out the latest Republican talking points.  I can't say you scored any points on the debate, but I truly do respect you for standing up for your position.

We should recognize that most Americans are focused on an exit strategy in Iraq," said Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home.

Senator Warner

...going back to the history of all occupations, whether it's ours or other nations', people have resented, the indigenous people, the presence of foreign troops. And we made it clear as soon as their government is formed, as soon as they have the security, both police and military, then that opportunity for the coalition of forces, just not the United States, to depart.

Then there's this

The Republican-led U.S. Senate has approved a measure calling for Iraqis to take the lead in securing their country next year to allow for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.  But it turned down a Democrat-sponsored measure calling on President Bush to outline an estimated timetable for a gradual troop withdrawal.

In a sign of eroding support for the war in Iraq, the Senate voted 79 to 19 in favor of a non-binding measure calling on Iraqis to take more control over the security of their country, a move Republicans said would create the conditions for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is a sponsor of the amendment, which has yet to be approved by the House of Representatives.

That's right, 79-19, including Senator John Warner (R-VA), want to get out of Iraq and turn it over to the Iraqis.  Are you saying you disagree with Senators Warner and Lugar, most other Republicans, and the vast majority of the American people?  What do you know that all of them don't know?

Zarquawi was in Iraq AFTER our invasion made things such a mess that allowed the al Queda to come in and make it their base.  This wasn't going on prior to our invasion. 

No, Jim Webb hasn't laid out a plan to withdraw, but neither has any person in the Bush administration, or the junior senator from Virginia. Every single military strategist and leader has said that you never go into battle without knowing how you're going to get out.  Well, our CIC took our soldiers into battle with no plans for the aftermath, and George Allen supported the president in this all the way to Baghdad.  Allen doesn't have a plan, he just follows what his president says.  Jim Webb will work with fellow Senators to make sure the right moves are made to avoid leaving behind a void where jihadists can reign.  Once again, the presence of these jihadists are a Bush administration by-product.  They wouldn't be there to begin with except for George's invasion.

Word.

Jim Webb doesn't believe that military intervention in the Middle East causes terrorist attacks, no reasonable or responsible person would suggest that the United States provokes terrorist attacks by its actions in the Middle East.

George W. Bush, instead of taking the fight to Al Qaeda, is caught up in utopian schemes to re-make the Middle East at the expense of our military, and George "Rubber Stamp" Allen is right along with him.

Suggesting a two year time table to put pressure on the Iraqi government for them to get their act together is not cut and run, its responsible foreign policy. Something the Republican Party of the last five years has sorely lacked.

What is George Allen's plan for Iraq? "Stay and pray"?

By the way, why does Bush's own father totally oppose what his son is doing in Iraq?  Why didn't Dubya listen to his father, to Colin Powell, or to Brent Scowcroft?  What's wrong with this boy, anyway?  No wonder his parents always thought he was the black sheep of the family, and that Jeb was the one who would be President some day.

Being AWOL is not.

You speak for yourself.  Not America and not Virginians.

You say : Al-Zarquawi, formerly the head Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, was given safe haven in Iraq prior to the run up to the war.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Biography) says:

At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[13] [14] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[15]

I'd prefer action to prayer.  Not likely from Bush or Allen.

Has Senator Allen outlined a plan to combat terrorism? No, he blindly follows George W. Bush, even if that path leads us to disaster. Some backbone he has.

Realizing that we need to put pressure on the Iraqi government by setting a time table for withdraw isn't turning against your country.

Turning against your country is advocating irresponsible fiscal policies that have left the federal government with its largest deficits and debt in history.

Turning against your country is over-stretching the United States military, bogging it down in a utopian scheme to re-make the Middle East instead of using them effectively and responsibly to combat Al Qaeda.

Turning against your country is refusing to play the role a Senator is supposed to play as a check on Presidential power and voting with the executive 97% of the time.

Turning against your country can involve many things, responsible foreign policy isn't one of them.

Why, yes, kind sir, I WILL have a glass of that kool aid while I listen to the music!  And please do leave some of that "your vagina is my damn business, not your" literature with me, I will read it as I carve "death to all gays" over and over into this tree next to me, which I will then cut down bc the environment is a magical place, not affected by global warming, and God will keep us all safe and free from the oceans anyway, just like Bush the great said!

Yes, yes, PLAY THAT FUNKY MUSIC, WHITE BOY, PLAY IT LOUD!  Wave as many flags as you can!  Kneel down and pray, and never forget 911!  NEVER FORGET!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

seriously, though, sometimes, we have to laugh at these kinds of comments, regardless of whether or not others believe them.  just my .02.

Does today's Iraq situation look like freedom to you? Is Iraq a model nation of freedom to the rest of the middle east?

You cannot impose democracy at the point of a gun.

The first thing the Clinton administration did in transistion was turn everything they had on terrorism over to the incoming Bush administration.  Which Rumsfeld and Cheney neatly set aside and pulled out a map of Iraq!  This was long before 9/11!

Most famously, the Bush Administration even ignored the August 6, 2001 CIA presidential daily briefing entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."  That was utter incompetence (Bush was busy clearing brush at his ranch in Texas), and we witnessed the tragic results just 4 weeks later.  That opened the door to the neocons' long-term wet dream of "remaking the Middle East."  Almost 5 years later, of course, the "wet dream" has turned into a seemingly endless nightmare.  Great work, BushCo!

For more on all this, see here, written by yours truly.

Brother, we are fighting Iranian's; Chechens; and all other sorts of radicalized folks in Iraq. The United States did not readicalize these folks, but they were well on their way to being brainwashed jihadists prior to our run up in Iraq.  As long as the radicalized Madrassas exist, the lifeblood of the jihadists movememt will continue to have new recruits. The recruits were in the pipeline prior to the war in Iraq and prior to September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq full fold. Better to fight them there than here. That is the bottom line.

Do you really think that Al Qaeda is not trying to attack us just because we are in Iraq?

So much for that vaunted Republican security.

By the way, why didn't George serve in the US military during Vietnam, where Jim Webb was fighting, almost dying, and winning the Navy Cross for extreme acts of courage and heroism?

We borrow trillions from China to fund our wars and spend trillions on Middle East oil to fund their wars.

Maybe global warming is from all that hot air talking about flag burning.

It used to be that all politics stopped at the waters edge of the United States. Apparently, that is no longer the case. I guess you conviently forget that the United States Senate supported regime change in Iraq? Lowell, tell me how many DEMOCRATS supported regime change in Iraq? Wait, I guess your gonna break into a triade against them next right? Oops, that would be hippocritical on your part right? Tell that to John Kerry and Harry Reid who endorsed Jim Webb.

Don't try to confuse the issue. Just because you are endorsed by a candidate doesn't make you identical to them.

How about those Democratic Senators that supported the war in Iraq? You know, the same ones that endorsed Jim Webb prior to yesterday's primary. Are they "disgraceful, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional?" Why are you not attacking them on your blog? Can you just answer that one question for me? I might have mispelled one word, but at least I am not afraid to answer a question.

A patriot doesn't blindly follow.

The national leaders who endorsed Jim Webb did not do so because they agree with him on every point, but because they trust and respect him and want to add his voice and experience to the Senate.  When they come together to make decisions it will be the result of many thoughts and ideas, not just one.

Your leaders have found a much easier way... the rubber stamp.  Instead of having to talk, argue, think...they can just phone it in and use the time saved to enjoy the lavish accomodations provided them by lobbyists.

Jim Webb was against this war from the get-go.

Try this on for my experience: United States Naval Intelligence Specialist 2nd Class Petty Officer, with in-theater service during Operation Desert Shield/Storm/Operation Provide Comfort onboard the USS America (CV-66) awarded the Liberation of Kuwait medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal (x3), National Defense Medal, Navy Achievement Medal among others....More to the point, I have over two years of tactical intelligence support in support of the Armed Forces of the United States is exactly my expertise Lowell. I have lived there for over two years and visited over 38 countries. Lowell, without any ad-hominems from you, Have I passed your test to be considered worthy to discuss the Middle East on a Democratic Blog?

OK, I have your response. First, tone down the Ad hominem stuff so we can talk. Second, I've only been ripped eight ways to Sunday just for posting on your blog, but no worries.

We have got to stay in Iraq because the Middle East must have a democratic government other than Israel. Throughout history, freedom in the Middle East has been elusive for it's people. In Iraq, we now have a chance to make freedom happen. If we don't stay the course in support of democracy, the wrong message gets out on the Arab Street. Regarding the inter-relationships between the radicalized Madrassas (sp), governments, and how the graduates of radicalized Madrasses fight freedom....this is very complex and is more worthy of a thesis paper than an internet blog posting. But, in my view and from my limited understanding, the radicalized Madrassas are funded by various sects throughout the Middle East. My concern is that those that are funded by the Whabbist (sp) sect are doing the most damage to radicalize the young minds in the Middle East. During the 1980's, the madrassas graduated a number of radlicalized students who went on to wage jihad in Afghanistan against the Russians. After the Russians left, the focus of the radicalized madrassas negativity changed to the West, the United States in particular. Reports are that the Saudi's pour millions if not billions into these schools in countries like Pakistan, and were it not for the madrassas, there would be no form of formalized education whatsoever. The problem is in the radicalization of the schools. Opening and closing school at the Madrassas with a pledge of hatered against the United States begain before Sept. 11 and before the overthrow of Iraq's government. These schools are funded with oil money, no doubt about that. These radicalized schools are brainwashing a  large segment of young Middle Easterners to despise freedom and the United States while giving praise and merit to Theocratic Government. From the ranks of the radicalized madrassas come the future jihadists who are receptive to the message of hate and intolerance that is being spread in the radicalized Mosques. From the radicalized Mosques comes new recruits for the terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Take Kashmir for example, the jhihadists that wage war in the North Western part of India are radicalized to the extent that they want Kashmir to be either part of an Islamic Republic or part of Pakistan, not due to a manifest destiny, but rather due to to shared belief that a  radicalized Theocracy can best serve the interests of the people in Kashmir...ie the creation of another Islamic Republic in the mold of Iran...one ruled by mullahs and sheiks instead of the people. The radicalized madrassas and the radicalized graduates they produce, are in fact the lifeblood of the global spread of the jihadist movement. The graduates of the radicalized madrassas are tomorrow's foot soldiers in the fight to spread the beliefs of the Whahabbi sect across the established governments Middle East, with the goal to transform other governments from whatever they are into Islamic Republics....their targets are Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Turkey, Morocco, on and on. Radicalized sects fund the radicalized Madrassas. The radicalized graduates go on to train at terrorist camps...to kill and maim those who don't agree with their view of rule by Theocracy. The spread of the jihadist movement far predates ANY cause and effect relationship with the US, rather, this is the Whabbist's (sp) systematic way to grow the next round of radicalized killers who prey upon freedom loving people and the governments that represent them. Yes, things are in a mess in the Middle East, but we have to get it right in Iraq in order for that country to serve as a counterweight to the radicalized message of hate that is spread through the radicalized Madrassas. Most of the population of the Middle East is under the age of 20. There has got to be an example of government other than Theocracy for the under 20 crowd in the Middle East. The concern in my view is that the radicalized madrassas have the bigger megaphone to talk about the future of the Middle East. With victory in Iraq, by victory, I mean a secular government that is democratically elected, we give the youth of the middle east a living, breathing example of how to live outside of the constraints of a radicalized Theocracy. This is the only way we can succeed in saving the Middle East. This is why the United States can not cut and run from Iraq. The alternative is to allow the Madrassas to continue to radicalize the youth. Lowell, if we were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the Iranians would step right in along with the Whabbists, and they would radicalize every segment of Iraqi life. We have the power to alter the future for those that would otherwise become terrorists or radicalized haters of the United States and civilivzed society in general. The United States must stand firm in Iraq to show the youth of the Middle East that there is a counterweight to radicalzed Theocracy. There is a future for them, we just have to be brave enough to weather the storm.

You cannot compare the elections in Palestine to the 'elections' held in the Soviet Union under Communism. In the USSR there was only one choice, and in the USSR there weren't international observers. There was more than one choice in Palestine, and it has been recognized to be (unfortunatley) a fair election. One that resulted in the victory of an odious organization to be sure, but nontheless fair.

As for the Syrian influence you are speaking of, Im not quite sure what you mean. I am talking about Palestine not Lebanon.

And who says there won't be Iranian influence in Iraq?

In Iraq, when elections were held, a coalition of Islamist shi'tes got the plurality of the votes.  The coalition the US backed lost.

I would add that, in the future, we need to follow the Powell Doctrine.  That is, we always have clear reasons - not lies, as we were fed by BushAllenCheney - to go to war, overwhelming force when we do, and an exit strategy so we're not stuck in some Third World hellhole for a decade.  Thanks Republicans, for WEAKENING our national security, for bankrupting our country, for 2,500 dead and more than 20,000 wounded Americans in Iraq.  In conclusion, the Republicans are the "weak on national security" party.  They must go.

By the way, for a report by a well-respected think tank on our "progress" - or, more accurately, lack there of - see the just-released CSIS report, "The Quarterly Report on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq: "Fact, Fallacy, and an Overall Grade of "F."  It's scathing, essentially accusing the US Defense Department and Bush Administration of being delusional on Iraq.  Speaking of the the quarterly report to Congress issued by the Department of Defense, as well as the State Department weekly status report on Iraq, it says:

*The economic analysis is flawed to the point of absurdity.
• No meaningful assessment is provided of the success and failures of the US aid effort, and no mention is made of the corruption and mismanagement in the aid effort.
• There is no meaningful analysis of oil developments, budget and revenue problems, and future needs for aid.
• The threat analysis is fundamentally flawed, serious understates the level of civil conflict, and fails to provide a meaningful risk assessment.
• Very real progress in the development of Iraq regular forces is exaggerated and the need for major continued support and aid is largely omitted.
• The basic problems in the police, justice system, and governance that represented a major threat and risk are omitted to the point where the analysis is so distorted as to be useless.

The report concludes, ominously:

The US cannot afford to repeat the mistakes it made in Vietnam. The strategy President Bush is pursuing in Iraq is a high risk strategy for Iraq. If it is to have any chance of success, it going to take bipartisan persistence, and sustained US effort. This requires trust, and trust cannot by built without integrity. The American people and the US Congress need an honest portrayal of what is happening, not lies by omission and “spin.� They need credible reporting that builds trust. They need to accept the real world risk and costs, and accept them. The latest version of “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq� does not meet this goal. It is both dishonest and incompetent, and is a serious indictment of the professional integrity and competence of every individual and agency involved in drafting it.

Webb being one of those very perceptive and smart people.

I imagine that is why you put yourself through posting on this site - because you probably know about Webb enough to know he can beat Allen.  And that somehow threatens you.

You represent a gutless airhead that help sell a package of lies to the American people, get a lot of people killed, severely damaged America’s standing in the world, weakened our military, embolden Iran, create a new training ground for Al Queda and throw Iraq into an active civil war. You represent an incompetent.

It will be a pleasure when we finally see Allen in a debate with Webb. Try and provide the flak if you will but at some point, Allen will have to face Webb. When he does, all your misdirection and distortions will not help him out. Go ahead; attack the honor of a fellow veteran. This time it will not work

1) It's hurting US strategic interests around the world
2) It's actually backfiring on the goal of a Democratic, pro-American Middle East, leading to increased anti-Americanism and LESS movement towards Democracy (see Palestine, Egypt, Iran)
3) It's hurting the US military
4) It's distracting us from the REAL war on terror
5) It's costing us a fortune and bankrupting the United States
6) It's actually stirring up terrorism in Iraq, and making that country less stable.
7) It's got us bogged down while North Korea and Iran - much greater threats to US national security than Iraq ever was or ever will be - develop nuclear weapons.

I could go on, but you get the picture.  The Iraq War is a disaster in pretty much every way.  Bush and the Republicans have seriously weakened US national security, and seriously INCREASED our vulnerability to terrorist attacks here in the homeland.  As I've said many times, the Republican Party is extremely weak on national security.  The Democratic Party is the one that will wage a tough but SMART war on terror.

What the hell is a "hippocracy"? A form of government in which a majority hippopotami rule?

Note to the RPV: please send better educated trolls.

(Well, maybe not our lives...)

Seems like they are pretty damn scared of Webb.

And the Republicans begin! Mr. Ozmore, is that you?

The card has been played: Weak on Terror. Results in neutralized military background, paints victim as lacking will to defend Americans (Note: when played with "9/11" card, makes voters susceptible to emotional appeals involving Rudy Guiliani, firemen, and pro-war Republicans)

Response?

"Osama bin Laden" card: refutes "We're winning, we got Zarqawi" argument. 5 years after Pearl Harbor we had won, begun rebuilding Europe and Japan, and demobilized most of the Army. Failure to capture or kill bin Laden is the most damning indictment of this administration's inability to protect Americans and destroy al-Qaida.

"False Choice" card: refutes "fight them there or here" argument. Leaving Iraq does not mean we abandon Homeland Security, do nothing to secure our borders, and do not continue to monitor and combat terrorist activities. It means we move our troops out of Iraq, which should never have been lumped together with the war on terrorism.

"Military principle" card: refutes "if we leave we will be weak" argument. It is always preferable to defend positions of strength than to attempt to hold onto a tenuous position under attack. American troops are sitting under attack, often unable to return fire due to the civilian presence. By withdrawing to a defendable position, the terrorists must leave their civilian shields in order to attack, and full force may be used to great efficiency.

"Bullsh*t" card: refutes crazy, overblown, and irrational arguments. First, Democrats want to stop terrorists, but who are jihadists? When did we start fighting Islam? Second, leaving Iraq will not lead to the "swift defeat of all freedom loving people." It means we won't have troops in Iraq any more. All indications point to many freedom loving people all over the world who will not be defeated by these "jihadists" when we leave. Third, Webb knows we are fighting terrorists, but what is "jihadism"? Is that like fundamentalism? Are we at war with that? And since when, even in a global war with anyone, do we have to fight everywhere? Why not pick and choose where we fight in order to maximize our strengths and minimize our losses?

Oh yeah. Osama bin Laden. Shut up.

I was in a conversation today about how progressives can reclaim/steal "entrepreneurship" from Republicans by designing education systems to teach independent thinking, risk-taking, and making sure that high school students learn how to start their own business, design a website, have a marketable skill, etc. This stands in stark contrast to the diploma factories and multiple-choice-based learning conservatives favor.

I think repeating "Osama bin Laden" every time a Republican mentions Zarqawi or fighting terrorists in Iraq will do wonders to reclaim/steal the "tough on terrorism" banner. Besides, if (as Bush says), everyone has a desire to be free, don't the Iraqis have that same desire? Therefore, if we leave Iraq, won't the "freedom-hating" terrorists then have to fight the Iraqi people to steal their freedom? And won't the Iraqis, without us to do the fighting for them, stand up and defend themselves?

Everyone wins but the terrorists! We get to come home, the Iraqis win their freedom, and the terrorists are defeated. Huzzah!

We've wanted this campaign for six years now, and now we have it.

To quote the Shrubbie one "bring it on... biatch!"

On immigration, however, I'm a little sad to see that politics has trumped principle.  I have no problem with "securing the borders first"--but it should be made clear that otherwise law-abiding families aren't going to be rounded up in freight cars and shipped back to Mexico and Central America.  Illegal immigration is a "complicated" problem, indeed, but it's important that pragmatism and principle guide policy.  Voters should be made aware of the actual cost of some of the more heinous anti-illegal immigrant programs on a moral and pragmatic level.