So what do I do if I'm this fabled AQ member in Iraq?

Maybe I stop blowing things up for awhile so I don't screw up the deal?

Maybe that lets Bush take credit for a successful surge? (What do you want joe/elephantman: More or less violence?)

Maybe the lull while these crafty terrorists "wait us out" allows some rebuilding of infrastructure?

Maybe that lets Iraqi's live a better life?

Maybe that lets us draw down as planned?

Maybe that weakens the strength of the insurgency if there are fewer infidels walking the streets and more electricity in the wires?

Progressives, as you call them (without ever explaining what is bad about being progressive), are often accused of taking delight in the death and dismemberment of our troops. But seriously, what do YOU want? Is less violence ok with you? If not, please explain. Does more violence tickle you because it means there are still lots of bad guys to kill if we stay? If there is less violence, will you take credit for success of the surge or will you panic that it's just the bad guys laying low until we leave? Are you finally ready to admit, with the rest of the cowards of your ilk, that the reason you want our troops overseas is that they are acting like human flypaper, drawing fire on a foriegn street? Is your real motto, "Get somebody else blown up over there so I don't get blown up over here!"

Jackass. You've had 4 years and screwed it up completely. (And this plan gives you more than another year to screw it up some more!) America is a great and forgiving (forgetting) nation but MOST Americans have reached their limit. It isn't the MSM or Bill Clinton or Sandy Berger's pants that brought us to this point. We can forgive much but incompetence has never been considered a virtue. Remember that as you continue to support the unsupportable, defend the indefensible, and promise the unobtainable.

Why email sent through less secure republican PARTY email systems instead of presumably very secure white house systems can be in any way considered "sensitive", "classified" or eligible for executive privelige restrictions. If the FBI can use/misuse national security letters to snoop in my email at their leisure, why can't we get everything that has to do with a possible real crime out in the open?

1. What do they need all the money for? I believe they are planning to take it with them. If that fails, Plan B is the permanent elimination of the inheritance tax so that their rich descendants may raise a glass to their memory and the dynasty they founded.

2. Why Iraq? We talk about how many of billions of dollars the Iraq war costs. That isn't money we are burning in furnaces to keep our troops warm on cold desert nights. It buys fuel, uniforms, food, replacement vehicles, replacement munitions, replacement weapons, etc.; all of which drive up the GDP (one of the only things to "improve" under Bush) and enrich the CEO's and shareholders of the fuel, clothing, food, weapons manufacturers of this and other countries.

Do they serve wine and beer with that sandwich? It would explain a lot, you know.

at least stay on topic. Other wise you sound like an ass...again

On my first read, it sounds like BOR is saying Iraq is a mess, the war has been a failure on how it's been run the last 4 years, and actually acknowledged that the majority of Americans have had it with the whole fiasco.

That can't be right.

Either the administration is in truly deep shit now if it's losing its right wing talking heads, or I've slipped into an alternate universe. Oh, wait. There's Spock with a beard...it makes more sense now.

Please explain why the boss can't sign the bill. It gives him everything he asked for and more. Even funds the stupid, life-wasting surge. Even kicks in extra for the disabled vets he's producing. It even gives him almost a year and a half to make some more while we wander our way out of this mess.

Yeah there's a bit of pork but show me any bill from the last 6 years that doesn't have at least that much or more. Better yet, specifically show me how clean the last 4 supplementals from the republican congress are.

He wants to fund the troops; he should sign the bill.

I don't watch O'Reilly because it hurts too much when my head explodes. I can understand what you are saying though. Still, we got the quotes, eh? I think the media should be pumped full of "Bill O'Reilly says...". He'll say it was taken out of context but who ever reads corrections/explanations like that anyway.

This from the president of the Senate. I liked it better when they at least pretended that this was a republic and not a constitutional monarchy. Maybe they're tired. They've always been lazy.

Fine with me if he wants to say that, though. Cheney just drove another 1000 libertarians out of the republican party.

I left out the sentence (rant) where I complain about the lip service they give to the law of the land and then proceed to blow off the intent of those laws and constitutional principles. Ignore my posts when done in a hurry

I even sent him a fan letter a few years ago urging him to stage a palace coup against the current occupant.

But comments like this are just embarrassing. Telling us that mispeaking is how he rolls does not build confidence. Especially after the last 6 years. I don't view it as a plus that in 2009 I'll be able to replace my "bushisms" calendar with "McCainisms"?