Hillary Clinton Supports Terrorist Propaganda

[Wild Cobra]

Pentagon rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq;_ylt=Aj1xgvJ1kVy89Cd86O_q6RQGw_IE)

Some of the article:


The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

[clambake]

Just trying to get a jump on the inevitable. It's a valid question. This administration continues to move the goal post. They need the space. We have to put more dead americans somewhere. Everyone knows the ending. Why not start preparing for it?

[DarkReign]

It may be true, but I dont remember people voting to invade Iraq. Whats the latest polls on "Should we leave Iraq?" again?

[Yonivore]

It may be true, but I dont remember people voting to invade Iraq.
Really?

The AUMF in Iraq passed overwhelmingly.


Whats the latest polls on "Should we leave Iraq?" again?
That's not a vote.

[boutons_]

The Pentagon is a big loser in Iraq, the Repug-run/politicized Pentagon didn't plan for an occupation. Now they are paying and will pay the consequences for years, just like the Pentagon licked its wounds for year after the VN fiasco.

The Pentagon's activities in Iraq PROMOTE the enemy's objectives, increase terrorist recruiting.

Hillary knows that the Pentagon is planning for withdrawal, with much more seriousness than the Pentagon had when NOT planning the occupation. 40K troops max remaing Rummy said by Sep 03.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee that's weird..There have been more and more republicans that are saying he same thing that Clinton said and they haven't been attacked by the pentegon.. interesting...

[Yonivore]

Gee that's weird..There have been more and more republicans that are saying he same thing that Clinton said and they haven't been attacked by the pentegon.. interesting...
The same thing?

And, who are they? Please link to the quotes.

Any of them potential future Commanders-in-Chief? You know, as in presidential candidates getting a lot of face time and sound bytes broadcast around the world?

[boutons_]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/washington/13assess.html?pagewanted=print

July 13, 2007
News Analysis

Fending Off a Deadline: Bush Seeks Time on Iraq

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, July 12 — President Bush’s Iraq strategy now boils down to this: He is trying to buy time for a surge that is living on borrowed time.

At Thursday’s news conference, Mr. Bush insisted — as he has for much of the four-year-long war — that drawing down troops was his ultimate goal, one he wants to accomplish while still in office.

( but he's building 5 huge miltary bases and a huge embassy compound for long-term occupation )

But Mr. Bush steadfastly rejected the advice of those who have urged him to hint at a timeline for a withdrawal, concluding that even the whiff of a deadline would embolden Republican rebels to join Democrats in setting a concrete schedule for moving troops out of the worst parts of Baghdad and other cities.

Mr. Bush appears all but certain now to succeed in getting Congress to stand down until Sept. 15, when a fuller report on political and security progress in Iraq is due. Two weeks ago, it was unclear whether he could succeed even in getting that time. But in the past few weeks, many Republicans have also said publicly and privately that after that date, their patience with the president’s strategy will expire.

Anticipating that moment, even some of Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledge that the increase in American forces that the president so ardently defended Thursday was already in its final phases. From the White House to the Pentagon to the military headquarters in Iraq, the focus of behind-the-scenes planning is already on what follows — a “post-surge” mission for the American military that Mr. Bush only alluded to on Thursday.

( can we assume the post-surge, narrower mission will be with fewer troops ?)

That narrower mission would focus the Americans on training Iraqi forces, assuring Iraq’s territorial integrity, deterring Iran from seeking to extend its influence in Iraq and preventing Iraq from becoming, as a result of a botched American occupation and all that followed, a terrorist haven. To a significant extent, it would pull American troops off the streets and out of harm’s way.

White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president, say that it is now clear that Mr. Bush is headed in that direction — and that the Iraqis want Washington to go there, too. But the White House officials refuse to say how fast, perpetuating the fears of Mr. Bush’s critics that he is just stalling for time, trying to get every extra moment on the clock he can for the current strategy, in hopes that the Iraqi government will somehow come together.

( that's like hoping that dubya will grow a brain )

A pivotal player in the discussion about how long to wait is Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates — with an assist from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. If Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice hold any skepticism on the troop-increase plan, they have kept it private. Instead, they have tried to frame the discussion beyond this week’s review of benchmarks in Iraq to one of long-term American national security interests there.

( aka, defending the oilfields owned by US/UK oilcos (if that ever happens), while getting mortared and shot at by the Sunnis and AQ )

That mission would last for years and would require a sustained presence, but at levels far below those on the ground today. Mr. Gates has hinted at a desire to at least announce plans this year for reducing the troop commitment in Iraq, which would have a significant benefit for morale among the troops and their families.

The efforts by his national security team to get Mr. Bush to embrace a narrow mission and lower troops levels sooner rather than later appear to have been carried out quietly, in hopes that by shifting the president a few degrees at a time, they can get the White House out ahead of the Congress, and try to defuse the issue before the presidential election. Whether that strategy will succeed is far from clear.

But it was clear from Mr. Bush’s statements on Thursday that there is no appetite to preview publicly the thinking about any eventual troop reductions and a narrowing of the mission, even if those reductions are inevitable. And they are inevitable: come April, say top military officials, Mr. Bush will either have to pull one brigade a month out of Iraq, or again extend the tours of soldiers on the ground — in the middle of a presidential election.

Administration officials say that if Mr. Bush talked now about pulling back forces at the end of this year or next spring, he would only provide new ammunition to those Democrats and a growing number of Republicans who are pushing for legislation now to set timelines for the withdrawal of some of the 150,000 American troops. The argument inside the White House last week, one official said, was over “how much leg to show” of that strategy. Karl Rove, the president’s political adviser, was among those arguing for showing very little, and judging by Mr. Bush’s performance on Thursday, Mr. Rove won the day.

Apparently with that advice in mind on Thursday, Mr. Bush described the follow-up mission in Iraq only in the broadest of terms. Perhaps one reason is that a scaled-back approach would bear tremendous resemblance to the narrow mission recommended by the Iraq Study Group in December and rejected as premature by Mr. Bush in his January announcement of a significant troop increase.

Mr. Bush said again on Thursday that he wanted to give the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki the chance “to open space for Iraq political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation” among Shiites and Sunnis.

Mr. Bush’s problem is that the Iraqis have shown little to no progress in using that time and space, as the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Few in the White House are betting that the situation will look much different in September. And that will raise anew the hardest questions facing the administration: What has the surge in American troops bought? And at what cost?

( what has the US military paid in lives while the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation the month of August? They are probably going to use time to squirrel away $$$ in foreign bank account and go shopping for homes in exicle. )
To be sure, Mr. Bush and his commanders in Iraq would argue that an effort to begin scaling back the American mission earlier would not have worked as recently as late last year, when it was advanced by the Iraq Study Group and supported by some officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon. But in the end, White House officials say, everything will come down to whether Mr. Maliki’s government can come together on the fundamental issues that divide Sunnis and Shiites before the American clock runs out. On that, there is far more skepticism in Washington than optimism — except from Mr. Bush himself.

[TLWisfoine]

Hey Yonivore, didn't the last elections kind of send a message that the majority of Americans really don't care too much what republicans think or say nowadays?

[Yonivore]

Hey Yonivore, didn't the last elections kind of send a message that the majority of Americans really don't care too much what republicans think or say nowadays?
Nope.

[PixelPusher]

Hey Yonivore, didn't the last elections kind of send a message that the majority of Americans really don't care too much what republicans think or say nowadays?
Yoni still can't figure out how all the blogs he gets his opinions from got it so wrong when they assured him the Republicans would retain control.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment, and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.


The gall of wanting to know if they have a plan...



She repeated her request for a briefing - classified if necessary - on the issue of end-of-war planning.

The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

I guess no one's accountable anymore in this administration...

[Oh, Gee!!]

pretty soon nobody will be allowed to ask questions or even speak in any voice louder than a whisper for fear that the terrorists will hear it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday by The Associated Press was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.

[boutons_]

I woulnd't be surprised if dickhead nullfies Congressional oversight of DoD by claiming DoD falls under Executive privilege.

[DarkReign]

I woulnd't be surprised if dickhead nullfies Congressional oversight of DoD by claiming DoD falls under Executive privilege.

....so does terrorist suspects, terrorist plots and terror management.

All hail, King Bush! 2008, anybody please...anybody else....please....

[George Gervin's Afro]

As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.


So I guess you want the terrorists to win?

Sincerely,
Yoni and X-Ray

[Findog]

The same thing?

And, who are they? Please link to the quotes.

Any of them potential future Commanders-in-Chief? You know, as in presidential candidates getting a lot of face time and sound bytes broadcast around the world?

Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Ron Paul, Gordon Smith, just to name a few.

[Ya Vez]

so it's ok for the pentagon to release their plans of military ops to the congress... sheesh that place is full of leaks and leakers... you'd think the pentagon would like to keep some element of surprise in their military ops planning... why would anyone in their right mind give a place like congress plans on a draw down... why they'd be in the NYT the next day... I side with the military on this...

[Wild Cobra]

Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Ron Paul, Gordon Smith, just to name a few.
These people are not advocating timetables the same way the demonrats are with the exception of Smith.

Dick Lugar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Lugar), is he running for president? Didn't see anything on that. Where do you liberals get your information from?

Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/iraq.lugar/index.html)

Lugar: Plans To End The War Are ‘Very Partisan,’ ‘Will Not Work’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/27/lugar-iraq-timetable/)

I couldn't find anything showing Hagel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel) supported a timetable, but did find this:

Lott says Senate won't pass Iraq timetable; Hagel says impeachment an option (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/25/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq.php)

Notice, Hagel is not voicing support for impeachment, just that others are. He has also not accounced a run for presidency.

Susan Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collins) is considered a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RINO) by many conservatives, but I couldn't find your allegations of her, and is not a presidential candidate. Did find this:

Allen, Collins take different tacks on Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/02/02/allen_collins_take_different_tacks_on_iraq/)


Susan Collins that opposes a surge of troops but does not set a timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq.

"My goal all along has been to craft a resolution that would be able to garner bipartisan support and send the strongest possible message to the president," said Collins. "Our leadership, obviously, has been aggressive in urging members to not sign on."

Tell Susan Collins: Vote to end the war in Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JRrjn4Ea2g) (You Tube)

Susan Collins on War & Peace (http://www.issues2000.org/International/Susan_Collins_War_+_Peace.htm)

Voted no on this amendment:


# Opponents of the Resolution say: This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
# The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
# Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul); it wouldn't surprise me if he advocates a timetable. He is the exception, and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being the presidential noiminee. Looked this one up anyway where he supports placing an expiration date on the 2002 authorization. That is toothless however, and doesn't mean he would vote against funding the troops or an actual timetable.

Ron Paul: End Iraq War Authorization (http://rxpaul.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=a298083e-0961-4eec-9c1f-df7e02c8b1a0)

Gordon Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Smith) is a dissapointment to me. He represents my state and is a RINO. He does advocate a timetable, but isn't a presidential candidate. He is too liberal to ever get the republican nomination if he tried anyway.

Senate Approves Timetable for Iraq Pullout (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9177063&ft=1&f=1001)

Curious, why did 'her thighness' change her mind:

Hillary on an Iraq war timetable in 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRY_fuIchi8)

[spurster]

All of this is posturing. The Democrats can force withdrawal by not funding the war. In the last go-around on Iraq funding, BushCo and the Democrats had a staring contest, and the Democrats blinked. We will have to wait until the next one for a real decision to be made.

[Wild Cobra]

All of this is posturing. The Democrats can force withdrawal by not funding the war. In the last go-around on Iraq funding, BushCo and the Democrats had a staring contest, and the Democrats blinked. We will have to wait until the next one for a real decision to be made.
The democrats know if they do not fund the war, they are history. They will still have their tried and true left support them, but they will lose the middle.

Can you say political suicide?

[PixelPusher]

The democrats know if they do not fund the war, they are history. They will still have their tried and true left support them, but they will lose the middle.

Can you say political suicide?
The GOP lost the middle 2 years ago.

Actually, the Democrats know that the GOP continue to own the war, and it's simply safer to keep giving the GOP more rope with which to continue to hang themselves...not very courageous or admirable, but it will work (and you can thank Karl Rove for setting the table for it to work).

The rightwing pundits deluding themselves into thinking the Democrats will have to share in the blame are the same pundits that refused to believe the Democrats would regain Congress in '06. All of these "meaningless" congressional motions serve to remind everyone that Bush, and Bush alone has control of this nightmare, and the GOP will continue to be punished for holding Bush's water - not just in '08, but for many years to come.

[Nbadan]

The rightwing pundits deluding themselves into thinking the Democrats will have to share in the blame are the same pundits that refused to believe the Democrats would regain Congress in '06. All of these "meaningless" congressional motions serve to remind everyone that Bush, and Bush alone has control of this nightmare, and the GOP will continue to be punished for holding Bush's water - not just in '08, but for many years to come.

Oh, no doubt that the current GOP is being held hostage by the lunatic fringe 25-30% of the party that still supports Dubya's misadventure into Iraq and actually thinks that the majority of people backed them in wanting to kick 2.5 million Mexicans out of the U.S....

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, no doubt that the current GOP is being held hostage by the lunatic fringe 25-30% of the party that still supports Dubya's misadventure into Iraq and actually thinks that the majority of people backed them in wanting to kick 2.5 million Mexicans out of the U.S....
I am not in the lunatic fringe, but I support the war. I served for 11 years. Have you served?

Now in my opinion, most who support the war support real border control too. I cannot speak for the others for their thoughts on expelling the illegals, but I really don't care. I just want the border secured. Most who I have met that I believe are illegals are actually very good people.

That said, I think it is irresponsible for anyone in the position to alter policy to say what I just said. To indicate that we will not kick those out once a secure system is in place will only make the rush to get to the USA greater. I have a feeling most conservatives are thinking like me on this.

Just secure the border and let those who made it here stay. That sound the opposite of how things have been in conservatives voiced opposition of comprehensive immigration reform, but think about it. The vocal statement has always been secure the border first!

[Wild Cobra]

The GOP lost the middle 2 years ago.

I'm not so sure that’s what happened. In my view, the GOP lost the conservatives. Historically, the GOP has won more when talking and voting conservative. I think allot of conservatives just had no one they wanted to vote for in '06.

Think about the two major flaws the GOP had in conservative views:

1) Allowed the biggest increase in spending in years rather than getting a grasp on socil spending and pork projects.

2) Too many advocated amnesty and don't want to enforce immigration.

I'll throw in another that is a factor of republican views on our president. Did you know that president Bush's disapproval rating took an immediate 7 point increase when he implied the Minute Men were vigilantes? The more he let conservatives know his views on border enforcement the lower his ratings went, and he drug down the GOP with him. It is already a given in normal cases that he will have a partisan 45% disapproval. We have a great economy, low unemployment, but conservatives will never forgive president Bush and other republicans who approve of pork barrel spending and lax immigration laws.

[boutons_]

'pork barrel spending"

will remain, and will remain anonymous (earmarks). The govt runs on $$, politicians run on $$, voters vote their pocketbooks. pork/earmarks are actually a tiny %age of the total govt budget. Federal politicians will never vote to kill pork and earmarks. They think they are entitled to vote them, and the recipients think they are entitled to receive them. It's America's version of socialism.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport#trend s

I don't support pork and earmarks, but it's not really a HUGE budgetary problem, compared to bullshit of $15B in dickhead's research grants to the oilcos (anybody follow up the results of that no-strings-attached gift?), $50B in subsidies for ethanol, and $1T in cuts in estate taxes for the hyper-rich, and of course the runaway, untouchable defense budget racket and corrupt MIC.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not so sure that’s what happened. In my view, the GOP lost the conservatives. Historically, the GOP has won more when talking and voting conservative. I think allot of conservatives just had no one they wanted to vote for in '06.

Think about the two major flaws the GOP had in conservative views:

1) Allowed the biggest increase in spending in years rather than getting a grasp on socil spending and pork projects.

2) Too many advocated amnesty and don't want to enforce immigration.

I'll throw in another that is a factor of republican views on our president. Did you know that president Bush's disapproval rating took an immediate 7 point increase when he implied the Minute Men were vigilantes? The more he let conservatives know his views on border enforcement the lower his ratings went, and he drug down the GOP with him. It is already a given in normal cases that he will have a partisan 45% disapproval. We have a great economy, low unemployment, but conservatives will never forgive president Bush and other republicans who approve of pork barrel spending and lax immigration laws.
All of the above explains Bush's sub-30's approval rating (and the comparativley lackluster fundraising capability of current GOP prez candidates), but to my original point, that the GOP lost the middle 2 years ago:

From October of 2006 (just before the midterms): Independent voters favor Democrats by 2 to 1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300766.html)

-snippet-
The independent voters surveyed said they plan to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by roughly 2 to 1 -- 59 percent to 31 percent -- the largest margin in any Post-ABC News poll this year. Forty-five percent said it would be good if Democrats recaptured the House majority, while 10 percent said it would not be. The rest said it would not matter.

and more recently: Political environment continues to favor Democrats (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27187)

-snippet-
The Democratic edge becomes obvious and more impressive when looking at not just party identification, but also party "leaning." In each poll it conducts, Gallup asks those who identify as independents whether they lean more to the Democratic or Republican Party. Generally speaking, partisan leaners' attitudes and reported behaviors are more like those of party identifiers than those with no party attachment or leaning.

These days, a greater proportion of independents express a leaning toward the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. When party leanings are taken into account, the 5-percentage-point Democratic advantage on national partisanship from the first quarter grows to 12 points, 52% to 40%.
http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070412ii.gif
The disproportionate leaning toward the Democratic Party among independents has been evident since early 2005. During the first term of Bush's presidency, independents' leanings broke about evenly between the two parties.

Democrats had a slightly larger 14-point advantage on leaned-party identification in the final quarter of 2006 than its 12-point edge in the most recent quarter. But those two gaps in favor of the Democrats are the largest Gallup has measured for either party in any quarterly average since it began regularly tracking leaned-party identification in 1991. (Gallup did ask leaned-party identification prior to 1991, though not on a consistent basis. Historical data indicates that Democratic advantages in leaned-party identification even greater than the recent 14-point edge were not uncommon in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s).
Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.

[clambake]

Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.


I served 11 years. Have you served? I didn't think so. If you had, you'd be much smarter. I, myself, am much smarter than some of those dead GI's that I saw coming to the morgue in pieces. Even though I was stationed in a command center in back of the room, I could still tell.

[Wild Cobra]

Contrary to your assertion, the middle isn't a half-n-half mixture, with a tons of disaffected conservatives waiting for the GOP to reform so they can re-up their Republican party membership, it's more made up of people who continue to be really pissed off at Bush and the GOP.
The middle as you describe it vs. the graphs you show are not necessarily moderates either.

Notice it says "independent!" As conservative as I am, I am in that category, not the republican.

I wonder if they did a poll on left vs. right with moderates rather than democrat vs. republicans with independents?

Maybe you are right, but please note your link does not contradict my view.

[PixelPusher]

The middle as you describe it vs. the graphs you show are not necessarily moderates either.

Notice it says "independent!" As conservative as I am, I am in that category, not the republican.

I wonder if they did a poll on left vs. right with moderates rather than democrat vs. republicans with independents?

Maybe you are right, but please note your link does not contradict my view.
Are you saying the two-thirds of independents that lean Democratic aren't moderate?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying the two-thirds of independents that lean Democratic aren't moderate?
I'm not making a claim to the breakdown. I really don't know. I do know that a huge part of the conservatives were so pissed at spending and immigration issues, they didn't vote. It might have made the difference, and I believe it would have. The "middle" probably had something to do with it also. but there were actually conservative hosts convincing their listeners that we should let the democrats win, as a lesson.

I don't know the breakdown, but what was classed as independent includes the Green party, socialists, communists, libertarians, the constitution party, etc. The first three likely vote for democrats when they don't vote for their party and the latter two likely vote republican when not voting party lines. The libertarian party is probably the largest of the independents, and most may be considered more to the liberal thought process. That is more because they believe in the personal freedom concept rather than individually advocating any particular left leaning view. The common thread with libertarians is small government, personal freedoms, and individual responsibility. Since it is the democrats generally wanting to spend more, grow the government, and restrict freedoms with regulations, the republicans generally get most the libertarian vote. Libertarians didn't stick so close to republicans in 2006. Like I said. Spending and borders. Borders may not seem like an issue libertarians care about, but republicans seem to ignore a key point the constitution allows, and libertarians care about the constitution. Immigration law is spelled out in the constitution as a government function.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not making a claim to the breakdown. I really don't know. I do know that a huge part of the conservatives were so pissed at spending and immigration issues, they didn't vote. It might have made the difference, and I believe it would have. The "middle" probably had something to do with it also. but there were actually conservative hosts convincing their listeners that we should let the democrats win, as a lesson.

I don't know the breakdown, but what was classed as independent includes the Green party, socialists, communists, libertarians, the constitution party, etc. The first three likely vote for democrats when they don't vote for their party and the latter two likely vote republican when not voting party lines. The libertarian party is probably the largest of the independents, and most may be considered more to the liberal thought process. That is more because they believe in the personal freedom concept rather than individually advocating any particular left leaning view. The common thread with libertarians is small government, personal freedoms, and individual responsibility. Since it is the democrats generally wanting to spend more, grow the government, and restrict freedoms with regulations, the republicans generally get most the libertarian vote. Libertarians didn't stick so close to republicans in 2006. Like I said. Spending and borders. Borders may not seem like an issue libertarians care about, but republicans seem to ignore a key point the constitution allows, and libertarians care about the constitution. Immigration law is spelled out in the constitution as a government function.
What makes you think most independents are libertarians? Here's another piece of that Gallup poll article:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070412iv.gif

Basically, only 3% of those surveyed were for any sort of 3rd pary (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) with 11% undecided. That leaves the rest of the independents to support a Democrat or a Repubican, and most support the Democrat. If most independents were Libertarians, they would have make a larger dent in the "3rd Party" category, or, if they were bound and determined to stick it to the GOP for not representing their values, remained in the "undecided" category.

Most independents are, well, just that..."independent" - for a variety of reasons including disaffection with both parties, or politics in general, or for holding a myriad of political beliefs that don't fit into the "liberal/conservative" packaging.

[gtownspur]

Leave it to pixel to bring up the popularity argument. Americans are shifty mofos. Don't resort back to your principles if this same tactic is employed against you whenever the next polarizing issue.

WHat will Pixel choose?

Polls or Principles?

[PixelPusher]

Leave it to pixel to bring up the popularity argument. Americans are shifty mofos. Don't resort back to your principles if this same tactic is employed against you whenever the next polarizing issue.

WHat will Pixel choose?

Polls or Principles?
The debate WildCobra and I are having is about popularity, dipshit.

[gtownspur]

The debate WildCobra and I are having is about popularity, dipshit.


I have no clue about why Wild Cobra is even engaging you in such stupid debate. He did however say that dems were in danger of losing the middle if the dems pullout, and then suddenly we started seeing gallup polls being posted by yourself. How insecure were you about your party to pull out gallup polls with out arguing your position on hillary?

[PixelPusher]

I have no clue about why Wild Cobra is even engaging you in such stupid debate. He did however say that dems were in danger of losing the middle if the dems pullout, and then suddenly we started seeing gallup polls being posted by yourself. How insecure were you about your party to pull out gallup polls with out arguing your position on hillary?
Well, it's helpful for both of us to first be able to define what "the middle" is first...run along now, the grownups are talking.

[gtownspur]

Well, it's helpful for both of us to first be able to define what "the middle" is first...run along now, the grownups are talking.

And you both failed at defininig the so called "middle", and got nowhere except for flexing and striking poses. I hope you both aren't adults, because our kids are definately in trouble if that's the case.

[PixelPusher]

I hope you both aren't adults, because our kids are definately in trouble if that's the case.
...says the guy who makes every other post a batshit crazy rant about "bukakkes".

[gtownspur]

...says the guy who makes every other post a batshit crazy rant about "bukakkes".


I'm sorry, it's not like i'm going apeshit about the fragility of my ideology and resorting to post Gallup polls when the oppurtunity is given.

[PixelPusher]

I'm sorry, it's not like i'm going apeshit about the fragility of my ideology and resorting to post Gallup polls when the oppurtunity is given.
Your right, gtown...the next time WC and I discuss politics, we won't use any of those crazy facts and such...we'll just trade gay slurs and obscure pop culture references like you do.

[gtownspur]

Your right, gtown...the next time WC and I discuss politics, we won't use any of those crazy facts and such...we'll just trade gay slurs and obscure pop culture references like you do.


Bukkakes is not a gay slur. :rolleyes this is why spurstalk should institute age limits because failure to have one has gotten young innocent children exposed to satire, and dirty language.

but hey kiddo, i'm glad you're taking a step forward. Don't take yourself serioulsy, cuz no one else does. And those gallup oppinion polls you post as facts, (see the oxymoron, and i don't mean moron in the general sense, Pixel is not the subject here!) well let me tell you, they are as factual as the flying flip, a certain jolly person in the North pole gives when he reads your wishes for world peace, a toy train, and more intimate time with your little league umpire, in your Christmas wish letter.

So don't get bent out of shape if i don't take you seriously. It's not that i despise you. It's just that I find your "facts" humorous, as contradictory as that sounds.

[PixelPusher]

Bukkakes is not a gay slur. :rolleyes this is why spurstalk should institute age limits because failure to have one has gotten young innocent children exposed to satire, and dirty language.
I referring to the actual gay slurs you've levelled over the year and a half I've been on this board, not your bukkake rants.


but hey kiddo, i'm glad you're taking a step forward. Don't take yourself serioulsy, cuz no one else does. And those gallup oppinion polls you post as facts, (see the oxymoron, and i don't mean moron in the general sense, Pixel is not the subject here!) well let me tell you, they are as factual as the flying flip, a certain jolly person in the North pole gives when he reads your wishes for world peace, a toy train, and more intimate time with your little league umpire, in your Christmas wish letter.

So don't get bent out of shape if i don't take you seriously. It's not that i despise you. It's just that I find your "facts" humorous, as contradictory as that sounds.
A "flying flip"...wow, that was profound. You really showed me. I'll never look at another poll again...

[Wild Cobra]

What makes you think most independents are libertarians? Here's another piece of that Gallup poll article:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070412iv.gif

Basically, only 3% of those surveyed were for any sort of 3rd pary (Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) with 11% undecided.
All I'm going to say is you cannot assume what you are assuming. I have no other responce to such irrational thinking on your part.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, this is what I see as the middle. Those who do not vote party lines and those who are not single issue voters. That is why I say the republicans lost the conservatives. Those taking single issues to heart and not voting, or voting democrat, were those who are adamant about spending and immigration reform. The republican majority failed us in these two areas.

[xrayzebra]

Dan, I was told you would really like this little email joke.
So enjoy.

Have you ever heard that a dog "knows" when an earthquake is about to hit?
Have you ever heard that a dog can "sense" when a tornado
is stirring up, even twenty miles away?

Do you remember hearing that, before the December tsunami
struck Southeast Asia , dogs started running frantically away
from the seashore, at breakneck speed?

I'm a firm believer that animals and especially dogs have
keen insights into the Truth.

And you can't tell me that dogs can't sense a potentially
terrible disaster well in advance.

Simply said, a good ol' hound dog just KNOWS when
something isn't right . . when impending doom is upon us.



. .http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/dog_peeing_on_hillary_sign.jpg

[PixelPusher]

Well, I hope the Bushbots got all the jollies they could from this cheap shot, because Edelman's boss had to come in and try to re-establish some semblence of responsibility and credibility.This is about as close to a genuine mea culpa SecDef Robert Gates can make in a carefully scripted, WH approved response to HC's 2nd letter.


Gates seeks to calm feud with Clinton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq)


By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
ADVERTISEMENT

At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

The letter also contains the most explicit admission to date that the Pentagon is in fact planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Gates telling Clinton: "You may rest assured that such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement."

Late Thursday, lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee were told they would get the briefing Clinton had been seeking for months on the issue of troop withdrawal.

The closed-door briefing next week is expected to be given by Edelman and Lt. Gen. John Sattler, who oversees plans and strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the notice sent to Democratic senators who had seconded Clinton's request.

Gates, in the three-page missive obtained by The Associated Press, sought to calm a politically stoked exchange between the Pentagon and the Democratic presidential front-runner over planning for the withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq.

The feud burst into the open last week when Edelman sent a stinging letter to Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee who had sought answers in May about how troops, equipment and vehicles would leave Iraq.

Edelman wrote that public discussion of withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda that the U.S. will abandon its allies in Iraq" and exacerbates sectarian tensions there. The New York senator said Edelman's answer impugned her patriotism while avoiding serious questions about troop withdrawal plans.

Gates' letter, dated Wednesday, insisted that was not the point of Edelman's missive.

"I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone's motives in this regard," Gates wrote.

The Defense secretary both agreed with Clinton that congressional oversight of military planning is needed and at the same time defended Edelman.

"I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention," Gates wrote.

"I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. forces in Iraq — including the drawdown of those forces at the right time — is not only appropriate but essential," Gates wrote, adding that Edelman also agrees with that point.

The weeklong back-and-forth underscored the escalating animosity between the Bush administration and the Democratically controlled Congress in the standoff over Iraq policy, and the center seat the divide holds in the 2008 presidential race.

Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines said the senator was "disappointed that Secretary Gates does not repudiate Undersecretary Edelman's unacceptable political attack."

Reines added that Clinton welcomes Gates statement that congressional oversight of the Iraq war is essential.

"She continues to believe strongly that there is absolutely no room for impugning the patriotism of those who rightfully engage in congressional oversight," Reines said.

The public feud between the Edelman and Clinton could win her points among anti-war voters and liberal Democrats, a critical constituency in primary voting that has challenged her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.

Facing questions about the war during Monday night's debate, Clinton mentioned the letter and the feud.

Among her top Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has argued that he opposed the war from the start when he was serving in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has disavowed his 2002 vote giving President Bush the authority to oust Saddam Hussein's regime.

Clinton, in a call Friday with reporters, said in response to Edelman's letter that she was "shocked by the timeworn tactic of once again impugning the patriotism of any of us who raise serious questions" about the Iraq war.

She was joined in the call by 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who accused the Bush administration of making "planning a dirty word and an alien concept."

She also complained directly to Gates in writing, asking if he agreed with Edelman's comments. Edelman is a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, and served as an ambassador during the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Military leaders have long acknowledged that they have plans for all contingencies in the Iraq war — more recently saying they have looked at adding troops, pulling troops out and maintaining current levels.

They have provided no details, and insisted that decisions hinge on the report from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which is due in September. Both men are to testify before Congress on how the current strategy is working and whether it needs to be revised.