Leading Republicans in Congress on Thursday declared that troop withdrawal legislation should be scrapped because the United States has made significant progress in the Iraq war, just as Democrats were resuming efforts to bring soldiers home.

We have them despite our own incompetence. The first person to understand that will be President.

Their Presidential candidates are fighting for the last seat on the Titanic:

McCain was ready and eager to stress his muscular position in favor of the "surge" in Iraq, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. The key moment came after Romney said the surge was "apparently working," and McCain challenged him. "No, not apparently, it's working," McCain responded sharply.

Romney, the ex-governor of Massachusetts, said he wants to wait to hear from General David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq who will testify before Congress next week, before rendering a less equivocal verdict.

That's the reality. We suck eggs, they suck balls. Apparently that's a huge difference.

p.p.s. God Romney is just a lying machine. Dude's betting on the incredible ability of GOP rank and file to engage in wholesale self-deception. If he gets the nomination, he will be more anti-Iraq War than all but Kucinich.

Gay By Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity
  Posted by Lorianne
On 08/29/2007 9:24:16 PM PDT · 3 replies · 96+ views

Mother Jones ^ | August 27, 2007 | Gary Greenberg
when he leaves his tidy apartment in an ocean-side city somewhere in America, Aaron turns on the radio to a light rock station. "For the cat," he explains, "so she won't get lonely." He's short and balding and dressed mostly in black, and right before I turn on the recorder, he asks me for the dozenth time to guarantee that I won't reveal his name or anything else that might identify him. "I don't want to be a target for gay activists," he says as we head out into the misty day. "Harassment like that I just don't need." Aaron..

Sorry, he's your's, and frankly over the next year I'd prepare myself for the woeful task of having to defend his record over and over and over again.  Suck's to be in the President's Party.

"The President's Party"

Use it every chance you get.

Because the more they tell the truth about Iraq, the more the Republican candidates for President must pander to their base and continue to deny reality. Makes it really hard to move to the center after winning your primary. GOP candidates must be staked to the denial and idiocy of this war. It will end the war faster than anything else.

Someone has to explain to me why simply being picked by a private equity firm to run Chrysler means Robert Nardelli is no longer tainted by his much discredited reign at Home Depot.  I'm sorry but let's not tip-toe around what is clearly a controversial decision by Cerberus Capital Mgmt.   In the real world someone of Nardelli's reputation should remain infamous until he shows any tangible positive results at his new post, not before.  On the other hand, it'll be interesting to see how the UAW likes negotiating with a guy who got $210 million dollars for running Home Depot into the ground?

Matt Yglesias uncovers another fundamental quandry presented by the "surge": The Iraqi Prime Minister doesn't like Gen. Petraeus, especially when he's arming Sunni militias and insurgents, but the American government does like Petraeus and his methods making it even harder to explain what we're doing or why we're staying. 

Frankly, I think Matt should have ended the piece with the line, "Which is why our next step is pushing for the removal of al-Maliki as Prime Minister" and it would come closer to what is likely to happen in the next year or so.

If you can't face Youtube, how are you going to face Al-Qaeda??

My thanks to FNC CEO Roger Ailes for the inspiration.

 

 

We've talked about the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end.

Now we are at the middle of the end.

Finally we are at the call for the special prosecutor. We are at the 25% percent approval rating.

I'm a little late on all the Politico bashing that's been going on and call me old-fashioned, but if you're going to title this piece "Obama models campaign on Reagan Revolt", it'd be nice if the author actually provided more details to support this assertion.  Best I can tell the name "Reagan" is only used three time in the piece, one of which is in the title, and exactly which "Reagan Revolt" campaign are we talking about: 1968, 1976, when he almost torpedoed Gerald Ford, or 1980?  Furthermore, how is the Obama campaign similar to the "Reagan revolt" campaign(s)... ah, we'll never know but if one of Obama's pollsters is quoted as saying the campaign admired Reagan's above-the-fray optimism evidently that's enough?

Anyway, if you read a little further down, you'll see that the author asserts and provides far more detail as to why Obama's campaign strategy more resembles Gary Hart's 1984 presidential run. Okay, so let's try this again, 

 "Obama models campaign on Hart's 1984 run"? 

Accurate, but not nearly as sexy as that Reagan headline, is it?