"It is one thing to appreciate our military. But there is no need for a pedestal."

No, Alan Bennett, our Military is comprised of this nations youngest Best and Brightest. They are our defense, we need to protect them, we need to redeploy them.

MoveOn.org nick named General Petraeus, General Betray-us, because he is Betraying our Military. Our Military is a big part of our nation's future, and we need to protect it, which is something that General Petraeus is not doing. General Petreaus could stand up to Dubya if really cared about this Nation's Best and Brightest. The Dubya War is breaking our military. We need to give Americans awareness of the danger that our military is in, by putting our Military on a pedestal, and convincing Americans that our precious Military needs to be redeployed.

MoveOn.org is not anti-military.

I also cringe at the "Betray us" thing... really... is that the best Moveon.org can do?

But then I thought about it... Can't we use the opportunity to make a truce with them? When they stop calling Obama "Osama" or emphasizing his middle name, we'll stop as well.

It's tough having wars of words with an opponent who has so little ammunition.

Stephen

I shake my head in wonderment about all the hyperventilating about the ad. We have seen worse: Chambliss against Cleland, the swiftboating etc etc. Come on Democrats: what gives you the idea that being prissy is going to help next year. You think the Republicans are going to hold back. It is one thing to appreciate our military. But there is no need for a pedestal.

Joan: you did well against one note Pat. I don't know why MSNBC has this man on. He opposed the war,but spouts a lot of pro-Bush nonsense while he chops away. He looks more and more like a standup comic.

You say emphatically that none of these events "have ever for one second influenced any "swing" voter in this country.

How can you say that? Did you go and poll swing voters and found they were not influenced?

In the interest of brevity I refer you to the elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004 as my source of polling data. Throw in the unimpressive performance of facts and logic in bringing public opinion to bear in support of any major liberal project during that time (outside of the Clinton Administration) -- prosecution of wrongdoing, defense of liberal bulwarks such as environmental protection and social welfare, any check whatsoever on the national debt, etc -- and I'd call that the voters being pretty damn uninfluenced.

So, your turn. What is an example of American liberals successfully winning over the American people as a whole in support of a major project of theirs purely on the basis of facts and logic during this period? (And canning Bork, while admirable, does not count.)

Then, on a roll, you make another ridiculous assertion that "liberals" gave "unquestioned acceptance of the entire Bush agenda [after the World Trade Center attacks]." ... I heard a lot of questioning from liberals

Did you? I would be overjoyed to hear it too. Cite me one instance in which the liberal intelligentsia questioned or criticized the following after the WTC attacks:

- the formation of the DHS and the subsumation of all national intelligence under one authority

- the Patriot Act

- Bush's disavowal of all responsibility for failing to stop the attacks

- Bush's continued claim that al Quaeda would need to be fought "everywhere," continuously, rather than simply obliterated in their seat of power in Afghanistan (which is what we did)

Prominent liberals couldn't even criticize the "Axis of Evil" speech or Bush's transparent machinations leading to the Iraq War without flipping out and taking it all back by the evening news cycle.

... in fact "liberals" pushed the whole American swing vote into the Democratic Party majority in the 2006 mid-term election.

After the Democratic Party was forced to

- ditch its chairman (to be replaced with Howard Dean, still widely regarded with muted distrust by liberal elites for being emotional, temperamental, and in various other ways not wholly fact-based or logical)

- replace its entire Congressional leadership (people whose civility and politeness hadn't just cost them their seats were a good start)

- dump its entire political strategy in favor of a new one

- widely adopt the methods and philosophy of the hated MoveOn (practitioners of uncivil showmanship rather than pure logic)

... then yes, within the past year they have been able to win an election. Is this supposed to somehow refute my argument?

And since you asked:

Who was it caught utterly flat-footed on September 11? The Democrats? Huh?

Name one Democratic leader who called Bush to task during the first 8 months of 2001 for the flawed priorities of his national security policy.

Name one Democratic leader who demanded during that period that the Bush administration report on its findings regarding al Quaeda, which had not attempted an attack in over 2 years and was widely regarded by private sector security experts to be "due" for another one soon.

Name one Democratic leader who called, after the WTC attacks, for an investigation of the Bush regime's failure to protect the country, or even asked in general how it was that the attacks hadn't been prevented.

Name one Democratic leader (not named Bill Clinton) who made any sort of mention of the years of foiled operations attempted by al Quaeda during Clinton's administration, in the context of their singular success in the first months of the Bush regime.

And no, as much as I might wish otherwise, Barbara Lee is not a Democratic leader.

Elephantman, very rarely do we meet people who take pride in the fact that they are a shill. Why didn't you call yourself GOPMAN? Well I am going to call you SHILLMAN.

However, since you are a shill, please answer me this question. How much poisoned cool-aid does a man like you have to drink before he dies? The Iraq War (or as I call it the Dubya War) is poisoned cool-aid, and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are trying to convince the blindly faithful Republicans in the legislative Branch to support the President in his vain effort to force more of that poisoned cool-aid down the throat of America.

Win you say? The Dubya War is not being lost, it is lost. It has become a lost cause that we are spending 9 Billion Dollars a week just to watch more American soldiers get maimed or killed while the sectarian violence around them gets worse. Lets look at the facts. Iran and Syria have become less Democratic in the past 4 years. Iran has a new ally in the Iraqi government. Hama and Hezbollah have become legitimate political factions in their respected countries. Osama Bin-Ladin is still sending us his video tapes. Al-Qaeda has retooled to their strongest level since 9/11/2001. Pakistan's is Osama Bin-Ladin's safe haven, and there is apparently nothing we can do about it. Our Military is near the breaking point. Officer recruitment is down, suicides among military personal is up, and the standards for acceptable enlisted recruitment have reached a rock bottom level. We are a trillion dollars in debt to China. Every nation is reducing the number of troops they have in Iraq, except the USA.

Where exactly do you see victory in all that, SHILLMAN?

I believe on election day in 2008 voters will reject the poisoned cool-aid even more so than they did on election day in 2006. No one wants to commit suicide, SHILLMAN, which is exactly what continuing the Dubya War will do to this country. It is time to redeploy our precious service men and women to other regions, where they are not in the cross fire of a civil war, and where they can better defend our country.