Well, looks like both Bush and McCain have fallen into the trap. Apparently Bush is going to take McCain's suggestion and send an additional 35,000 troops to Iraq. They can do this for a few months by overlapping the tours of duty; starting the incoming troops a few months before the outgoing troops leave.
In other words, the idiots have decided to take sides in a civil war! The 'terrorists' in Iraq must be popping champagne corks over this one! It's like General Terry sending more help to Custer......all it does is give the enemy more targets to kill.
On another subject.... If the Senator from S.D. dies or can't serve, the Gov. of S.D., a Republican, appoints someone to the office until the next general election in 2008. Question: Will the Governor do the honorable thing and name someone of the same political party, a Democrat, or will he do the crass political thing, and name a Republican? Wanna make a guess?!
My irreverent reply with the chop comments
Honor? Please, liberals don't know the meaning of the word. He will do the honorable thing all right and appoint himself. But don't expect it to happen.
NL: This is a most interesting reaction on your part. It certainly makes working together in Congress a bit difficult don't you think? But, the position of Rove and Nordquist for the past 12 years has been that they don't need the D's, we got the votes. They thought that they were headed for a permanent R majority; that the neocon victory was forever. But, as the R's are about to find out, no victory is forever. Majorities change to minorities. And, believe it or not, in domestic, as in internation politics, you do have to work with and talk to your political opponents. The real world does have a way of intruding. If positions were reversed I would expect a D Gov to say, well, u won the seat, your entitled to have an R fill it for the next two years to a general election, and name an R to the seat. That's the way honorable men and women work. Alas, we seem to be past that, and politics is not the business of governing but the business of simply winning.
I have a question though. What becomes of the vote for leader? No way Johnson gives up his seat willingly, yet if he is incapacitated, no vote. So, the majority has not enough votes.....
NL: Well, as the SD state web site notes, this has happened before in SD. Karl Mundt (I have a picture from about 1962 of my mother and I in Mundt's office in DC with his arms around both of us. Look him up and see what his politics were.....) lingered for a long long time and the Gov didn't appoint anybody. The seat was not empty, legally. So, nobody could vote in his name even though the D's would technically still hold the majority, as there would be 50 D's and 49 R's, this being a rare case where loosing a seat, so to speak, does not automatically mean the gain of a seat for the opposition. The purpose would be to keep that majority and hence the chairmenships etc.
Love your boy Harry, "He really looks good..." Yeah, I just had brain surgery, doctors questionable if I will even live, but I look "marvelous"... Love it! Your boys a complete piece of work... Reminds me of when what's her name (congresses woman something or other) out here went in to the hospital. The hardcore dems claimed the family's privacy, and we never knew about her condition until she died two months later. Of course that was well past the time anyone could mount a campaign... Imagine those Honorable Dems doing such a thing! How about your Honorable Harry!
NL: Don't recall who your talking about. Somebody in Oregon? Anyway, there is no way to declare the seat vacant short of death or resignation.
I notice something though. One lib has done the honorable thing. Yes, uber lib judge actually upholds congress and the Pres! Bye bye Hamdan! Hahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahhhaaa! I even give it to you at your favorite source:
Rare Carlos link to the Old Grey Hag
At least one lib has some honor...
NL: Judge Robertson is an interesting case. He resigned from the FISCourt without comment. He applied the statute and that was that. The next step, of course, is to appeal not the statute but the constitutional issue of hab. corp. to the Supreme Court and get a ruling there. Personally, I would argue that anybody who comes under the control of the US government also picks up the protections relating to due process, Hab Corp, speedy trial, right to confront witnesses and presentation of evidence, etc etc. The Constitution should cover and protect anybody who comes within its grasp. If you come under the penalties you should also come under the protections. Bush wants to avoid the usual criminal courts only because he knows he could not win a conviction there, in part based on the use of torture and in part because he knows that none of the cases would stand up to evidencery standards.
As for your celebration crap. You live in a vacuum. When did the terrorist actually celebrate recently? Yes, when Dems regained control. Why? Because they figured that meant they were winning and we would leave. You're in outer space. There is the real world, and then there is the nutters imaginary world. Even the liberal nutter MSM drive by press commented on the cheering by Americas enemy at the election result. They don't cheer when we send more troops... Wanna guess why?
NL: Can't say as I recall any 'celebrations'. Exactly what are you referring to? I would think they are celebrating now because the US is going to continue, at least for two more years, the same policies that will continue to drain the national treasure, get Americans killed, turn people the world over against the US, and produce the chaos that the insurgents and terrorists thrive in. If the Bushites and McCain actually do sent another 35,000 troops without a substantive change in how those troops are used, then the situation will only get worse. If the troops are used to provide security while construction takes place, if they are used to secure areas on a long term basis rather than search and clear and then leave, if they are embedded and work with carefully vetted units of the police and army who are loyal to a unified Iraq government, then they might accomplish something. But. I don't see any evidence that that is the plan, or could even be done at this point. I suspect we are far beyond that point. That should have been the immediate plan after defeating Saddam's army, and at some point the situation deteriorates beyond repair. It doesn't sound to me like there is anything to the Bushite plan other than more troops, without the necessary political settlement that has to occur. That being the case, the strategy (or non-strategy) will fail in a very few months, Iraq will collapse, the Saudis will come in from the west and the Iranians from the east and the Americans will try and retreat out in haste, disorder, dishonor and disaster just as they did in Vietnam, and will blame the Iraqis for their failure, just as they blamed the Vietnamese. Sic transit gloria.
End of Transmission
My comments on the discussion are brief. First, conservatives have never held a majority in the Senate. In fact you could argue we held the house for a few years, and two terms of the presidency ('80 and '84). So a definite majority is still out there for us. Bush and the current crop of Republicans had some success, and finally gained control, but they aren't very conservative. At least the president is movable on a few of the most important issues. But, unfettered spending, ridiculous border enforcement, refusal to stand up and lead against liberal inanity.... these transgressions are difficult to stomache.
Second, the constitution should cover any person who is a citizen of this country first and foremost. Then alien residents, tourist, on down to diplomats (scum of the earth). Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and should be covered as well, i.e. deported. Then those of other status would fall under the many treaties we are signatories of, under Constitutional authority. Hence we can Constitutionally execute irregular enemy combatants at will in a time of war. To determine wether a individual falls into that category, we have nicely provided for them a fair and judicious method via military tribunals. Case closed except for whining liberal idiots who hate Bush first and foremost, and then the military, so the issue is ripe for much gnashing and grinding of teeth.
Finally, anyone who missed how pleased Ahmadinejad was at the election results is a buffoon. Congratulations flowed in from many a corner in the world of Islamofascism, and to ignore it leaves ones head deep in the sand. In fact you could say the Democratic party was definitely the representatives of choice for Islamofascists. Then to assume that what the terrorists thugs want is more of our best and brightest speaks to a arrogance coupled with blindness concerning the nature of the battle we face. However, a scenario of true civil war is always a possibility. Every country has civil unrest looming in the background, even first world monocultures like Japan. When you consider the socioeconomic forces in modern Iraq, the possibility of a religious war is always near. It was less than two decades previous that the same area saw much conflict. The goal of each player is to gain as large a supporting population base as possible, and then in the case of the Islamic nutters, expand as necessary until all are subdued. The Kurds aren't giving anything up, and we are currently building a very nice facility in the Kurdish 'state' that I am sure will be welcome to the US for many moons. The Sunni triangle is a loss, but the expectations before the war probably weren't to high. Sadly, after making a stand in Fallujah and other areas, we turned it back over to weak Iraq control.
It can be expected that the population in those areas resent American security. They suffered the least under Saddam, and lost the most when he fell. The crux of this current situation revolves around how much control of Iraqi Shiites can Iran get before the Iraq police forces become stable. That could take a decade. Yet to allow the region to dissolve into more conflict would be detrimental to US security. We are fighting a war initiated by Islamofascist nutters, and though the battlefield has changed, the commonality in purpose of the enemy has not. Saddam wanted to expand his control in a Stalinist fashion, yet irritated to many neighbors. Think of his playbook though, lob missiles into Israel continuously while looting a fat prize Kuwait. What were the missiles for? Arab political cover. Anyone who lobs missiles into Israel is a true Arab hero. What does Iran do in the modern day? Hezbollah as a proxy lobs missiles into Israel. Iran is a valiant warrior of the people. Al the while infiltrating Iraq and attempting a nuclear arsenal.
We will be seeing a greater conflict soon, whether we want it or not. And we can fuddle duddy around with inane attempts at pathetic diplomacy, or prepare for serious conflict. Talking all day long will postpone, no will give those who are relatively weak time to strengthen themselves. Has Hezbollah disarmed yet? Or perhaps have they resupplied themselves? Will Iran attain a nuclear device? Or is it when? A key in both of these questions is Iraq. If Iraq is a complete mess, there will be even greater pressure. If Iraq strengthens itself, the chance of Iran and Syria further supporting terrorist activities diminishes.
All of these points seem clear and self evident to me, yet why such ignorance on the part of socialist liberals in America? To let emotion control your behavior is a sure sign of eventual defeat. And the leftists are filled with rage, hate, and anger in this country. What will satisfy them? What will appease them? Or do they need to be marginalized and eliminated... Americas greatest threat right now seems to be from within, a potent cancer of the heart. Liberal socialism, the permanently disaffected. May we be given a great light to shine upon them.