*official* 2008 us election thread

[Gordon Comstock]

FARE AND BALLAST

[Jason the Yank]

Obama will win. [/AJ]

[Jason the Yank]

Politico.com

Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.

Widespread perceptions that Giuliani is the most electable Republican in this year's field are driving his support among social conservatives, according to the analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

If the trend holds, this apparent willingness to support a candidate who fails what were once regarded as litmus-test issues would mark a landmark shift in the political behavior of a constituency that has been a pillar of the modern GOP. Already the shift is spurring sharp debate among prominent Christian conservative leaders, some of whom warn that Giuliani backers are abandoning core principles.

Forty-four percent of social conservatives in the Pew analysis believe that the former New York mayor has the "best chance" of becoming president in 2008. Less than half that figure, 19 percent, regard Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the most viable, despite twice as many social conservatives stating that McCain “comes closest†to their view on abortion. All other Republican candidates lagged far behind.

These calculations about electability are helping propel Giuliani over McCain among social conservatives, even though the Arizonan shares the opposition of most of these voters to abortion rights.

Giuliani is winning 30 percent of the social conservative bloc, compared to 22 percent for McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney captured just 8 percent — a figure that puts Romney in fourth place, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is currently not a declared candidate.

No supporter of abortion rights has run competitively in GOP nominating contests since 1976, when Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan.

"A significant number of social conservatives have adopted a pragmatic line," says John Green, a senior fellow at Pew who compiled the polling. "Pragmatism can be seen on the one hand as a good thing, because it produces results, and on other the hand it can be seen as a bad thing because it involves compromising one's principles, and that's just a tension social conservatives have had since the days of Ronald Reagan."

Green carried out his analysis at the request of The Politico using data from Pew's March and April polls of the general electorate. To capture the mood of social conservatives, he focused on white, Republican or Republican-leaning Christians who attend church at least weekly. Social conservatives make up about 42 percent of the total Republican vote.

Some Christian conservative leaders acknowledge the willingness to back a candidate with opposing views on basic principles is a major moment — and for some, a traumatic one — in the history of their movement.

"I would not vote for [Giuliani]," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "My conscience will not allow me to do it. I'm not saying that others won't. I think there are a lot of evangelicals who would look on Giuliani as the lesser of two evils."

It is a calculation that has frustrated one of this year's GOP candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has been counting on his own socially conservative views and background as a minister to be a political springboard.

"If social conservatives don't coalesce around issues that brought them in, then they really do no longer serve a political constituency that has clout. If they become just another Republican special interest group then they really are no different than the Republican women of Pulaski County, Ark.," Huckabee says.

Social conservative support has proven central to the making of the modern Republican president since 1980. That year Jerry Falwell, who died this month, rallied millions of social conservatives from the political hinterlands to play a vital role in Reagan's election.

Twenty-four years later, George W. Bush won social conservatives by equally large margins. Three in four Baptists or evangelicals also backed Bush nationally when he ran for reelection in 2004, according to exit polls.

"I would think that the Republican Party would want to hesitate before changing a formula that has brought them incredible political success from 1980 until now," says Gary Bauer, a former domestic adviser to Reagan and longtime social conservative leader.

With the primaries a half year away, the pushback within evangelical leadership may still trickle down to the grass roots. But thirty-one percent of social conservatives have given the 2008 presidential candidates "a lot" of thought. Only 23 percent of other Republicans have given the race the same level of scrutiny.

Giuliani has tried to appeal to social conservatives, embracing their agenda by pledging to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, using Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. as examples. Conservatives expect "strict constructionists" to determine that the Constitution does not mandate abortion rights.

But, like Dwight Eisenhower's in 1952, Giuliani's national security stature after the Sept. 11 attacks more likely explains his continued popularity within the religious right, whose voters have long held hawkish positions on the issue.

"These voters care about moral issues, and many of them are conflicted because understandably they see the defense of Western civilization being perhaps the most important moral issue of all," Bauer says.

Perhaps the strongest variable favoring Giuliani thus far among his party's conservative wing is that none of his competitors have caught fire.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson could be an appealing figure to the religious right, but he has yet to enter the race. Romney and McCain, the other two top-tier GOP candidates, have yet to energize social conservatives.

"McCain is about as pro-life as you can get, but the problem with him is his unpredictability," Land says. McCain has challenged social conservatives in the past. In 2005, McCain infuriated conservative Christians when he led an effort to block the "nuclear option," a conservative effort to ensure conservative Supreme Court appointments.

In Romney's case, Bauer and Land say many social conservative leaders accept his recent conversion to the antiabortion fight. But Romney, who has also been accused of suddenly veering right on issues like gay marriage, still has failed to win over conservative Christian voters. But polls indicate Romney leads among Republicans in Iowa and may still gain ground among social conservative voters there.

Giuliani's early success with the religious right has brought dire warnings about what his nomination could mean. Huckabee believes it is a "very likely scenario" that if Giuliani is the nominee a significant portion of the social conservative base will not mobilize for Republicans in the general election.

Land doubts such an outcome.

"The perfect is not the enemy of the good," he says, arguing that Giuliani is still significantly closer to social conservatives on key issues than leading Democrats. After all, Land adds, social conservatives "understand they are voting for commander in chief, not Baptist in chief."

[Jason the Yank]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidates Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd will not participate in a Democratic debate co-sponsored by Fox News Channel this fall, joining their three top rivals in bypassing the event.

Their decisions, acknowledged by campaign aides Wednesday, is sure to disappoint the

Congressional Black Caucus, whose political education and leadership institute is Fox's partner in the debate.

But Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, and Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, have been under pressure to shun the debate from liberal groups who say Fox is biased against Democrats.

The debate exodus began two months ago when

John Edwards became the first candidate to announce that he would not attend the Sept. 23 debate in Detroit. A week later, Sens.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama announced they also would not participate.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have said they intend to be at the debate.

Several campaigns have agonized over the decision, especially because of the participation of the Congressional Black Caucus, the group that comprises Congress' black lawmakers, including Obama.

But Colorofchange.org, an organization of black online activists, and the liberal MoveOn.org have agitated against Fox with an Internet campaign that includes video excerpts of conservative Fox commentators. MoveOn this week initiated an e-mail campaign urging backers to call Biden's campaign to demand he back out of the debate.

"The Congressional Black Caucus represents an important base within the Democratic Party," Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro said. "We think Democratic candidates ought to be willing to respect that."

The caucus is co-sponsoring another Democratic debate with CNN in January. No one has indicated they will miss that one.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times and the Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies have been trying to secure commitments from Democratic candidates to participate in a debate next week devoted exclusively to

Iraq. Biden, who has been demanding a war-only debate, is the only one so far to say he will attend.

Robert Guttman, the director of the center at Johns Hopkins said other campaigns have indicated interest and said some cable news organizations and public television have said they would cover the debate. It is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday's at Johns Hopkins' Kenney Auditorium.

Guttman said he planned to place chairs on the stage for the candidates, whether they attended or not.

"We're ready to roll, with full seats or empty seats," Guttman said.

___

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday repeated his call to add more troops, saying the Iraq war had left the nation's military seriously stressed.

The former governor of Massachusetts said he supported

President Bush's decision to intervene in Iraq, but conceded that the effort has had plenty of missteps.

"I think we've made a number of mistakes," said Romney, opening a two-day campaign trip to Iowa by speaking to a business group. "We were underprepared for what developed. I don't think we had anywhere near enough troops."

Romney said he supports adding at least 100,000 troops to the military.

The idea of pulling American troops out of Iraq is "very tempting," Romney said, but doing so would lead to a larger conflict in the region.

Romney said he was willing to give the president's plan of increasing troops in Iraq time to work, potentially as long as the end of the year.

"If it's working we'll all celebrate that," said Romney.

Romney was also asked about his effort as governor to broaden health coverage. He said the Massachusetts plan could serve as a model for the nation, but as president he would be reluctant to impose solutions on the states.

"My inclination would be to let the states try their own plans," said Romney. "We're going to give them flexibility."

[Kizzak]

Two pieces that promote laughter:

1. Cynthia McKinney, of blaming the Jew for 9/11 and her electoral failures and punching a Capitol Police Officer fame, is planning a run for the Oval Office it seems... http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120445.html

2. Bush seems to finally be alienating his very last supporters left, neocons: (note the comments) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25668_Wor...of_the_Year_(So_Far)

[Gordon Comstock]

hahahaha McKinney

got redistricted into John Lewis's district in 2006 :*(

[bflaff]

I don't suppose it's a good thing that none of the Dems, save Biden, are willing to participate in a debate exclusively centered on Iraq.

When will it sink in for these candidates that no one really gaf about the rest of their platform if they have nothing to say about Iraq and fighting terrorism?

They've only had six years to think about it. :sarcasm:

[bflaff]

I swear, the dumbest kid I ever TA'd would instantly become the smartest guy in the room, no matter where he was standing in the White House. Can we please put Paris Hilton in charge? She could do wayyyy better.

Bush is now apparently using the garrison we have in the ROK as a model for Iraq, never mind that there is almost no basis for comparison here. To even suggest such a thing boggles the mind and demonstrates breathtaking stupidity.

Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

The comparison was offered as the Pentagon announced the completion of the troop buildup ordered by Bush in January. The last of about 21,500 combat troops to arrive were an Army brigade in Baghdad and a Marine unit heading into the Anbar province in western Iraq.

Brig. Gen. Perry Wiggins, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there are now 20 combat brigades in Iraq, up from 15 when the buildup began. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops. Overall, the Pentagon said there are 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. That number may still climb as more support troops move in.

The administration warns that the buildup will result in more U.S. casualties as more American soldiers come into contact with enemy forces. May already is the third bloodiest month since the war began in March 2003. As of late Tuesday, there were 116 U.S. deaths in Iraq so far in May — trailing only the 137 in November 2004 and the 135 in April 2004. Overall, more than 3,460 U.S. service members have died.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said Bush has cited the long-term Korea analogy in looking at the U.S. role in Iraq, where American forces are in the fifth year of an unpopular war. Bush's goal is for Iraqi forces to take over the chief security responsibilities, relieving U.S. forces of frontline combat duty, Snow said.

"I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time," Snow said. "But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence."

Instead, he said, U.S. troops would provide "the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of the Iraqis. But you do not want the United States forever in the front."

The comparison with South Korea paints a picture of a lengthy U.S. commitment at a time when Americans have grown weary of the Iraq war and want U.S. troops to start coming home. Bush vetoed legislation that would set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals, and forced Congress to approve a new bill stripped of troop pullout language.

Asked if U.S. forces would be permanently stationed in Iraq, Snow said, "No, not necessarily." He said that the prospect of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq were "not necessarily the case, either."

Later, Snow said it was impossible to say if U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for some 50 years, as they have in South Korea. "I don't know," he said. "It is an unanswerable question. But I'm not making that suggestion. ... The war on terror is a long war."

South Korea is just one example of U.S. troops stationed more than a half-century after war. Germany and Japan are two other examples. American forces are deployed in roughly 130 countries around the world, performing a variety of duties from combat to peacekeeping to training foreign militaries, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a defense-oriented think tank.

In South Korea, about 29,500 U.S. troops are stationed as a deterrent against the communist North, but that number is to decline to 24,500 by 2008 as part of the Pentagon's worldwide realignment of its forces. The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, seemed a surprising choice when he got the job earlier this year, yet his experience as U.S. commander in the Pacific overseeing the Korean peninsula would serve him well if the U.S. military adopts a Korea model in Iraq.

___

AP writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report from the Pentagon.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by bflaff:

I don't suppose it's a good thing that none of the Dems, save Biden, are willing to participate in a debate exclusively centered on Iraq.

When will it sink in for these candidates that no one really gaf about the rest of their platform if they have nothing to say about Iraq and fighting terrorism?

They've only had six years to think about it. :sarcasm:

If it were on any other network - that might be one thing, but I'm all for just not touching FNC with a ten foot pole.

[Jason the Yank]

Georgie Anne Geyer: A spreading terror

Iraq now set up as a school for insurgents ready to be exported

11:44 AM CDT on Thursday, May 31, 2007

Anyone who knows anything about cancer knows that the danger point comes when the cancer suddenly and unexpectedly appears in another supposedly "clean" part of the body. As when, say, breast cancer, an implacable traveler, reappears in the bloodstream or the bones.

That there are stunning similarities between what happens medically in the body of man and what occurs sociologically and militarily in the societies of men is far less noticed – but just as frightening and dangerous.

Think of what has happened in only the last week in the Middle East. In northern Lebanon, in the long-established Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, out of the blue arose a new al Qaeda-related insurgent group, Fatah al-Islam. Within days and even hours, the recurring hell of the Middle East was loosed, and refugees poured out of the camp in terror.

There had been none of this kind of terror networking in these northern camps. Indeed, since this camp was established in 1949 to accommodate refugees from northern Palestine after the creation of Israel, it has housed one of the more formal and conservative of peoples.

But it was soon established that these new "insurgents" or "terrorists" – or whatever they really are – had arrived at the camp only recently, that they marched in one day with brand-new weapons, ready to fight.

Two points grip you:

•The first is found in the words of French scholar Bernard Rougier, author of Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam Among Palestinians in Lebanon. "The main point is that these camps are no longer part of Palestinian society," he told The Washington Post . "They are only spaces – now open to all of the influences running through the Muslim world."

•The second is that Iraq, where we were supposed to be "containing terrorism," is now clearly exporting insurgents to other regions – to Lebanon, to Syria, to Gaza, to Bangladesh, to Kurdistan.

And so, on the one hand, you have weakened societies vulnerable to the "new answers" of "new insurgencies," and on the other hand, you have Iraq set up as a school for terrorists with American troops and policy providing the constant inspiration for their fight.

This, of course, is not the way the Bush administration sees it.

The White House sees terrorists as born, not created by history, bearing the mark of Cain, not the mark of circumstance. There is a scarlet "T" written on their foreheads at birth and the only answer is to destroy them. This kind of thinking, of course, relieves the thinker of any responsibility for the presence of the insurgent-terrorist-whatever in our innocent midst.

What's more, there is not much real give in the administration's policies. True, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other American diplomats met Memorial Day weekend with the Iranians in Baghdad (a good first move but limited, since the Iranians have most of the power because of our incredible stupidity in Iraq). But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

The truth of the steadily deteriorating situation in the Middle East is, of course, quite different. The Palestinian people of 40 and even 30 years ago were formal, conservative people who remained closely tied to their families, clans and religious groups. Theirs was a highly stratified society, which has now been shattered.

In the institutional vacuum that is a camp like Nahr el-Bared, a few hundred men trained and tempered in Iraq can make a huge difference. At the same time, the Turkish military is ready to go into northern Kurdistan, al-Qaeda operatives from Iraq are popping up in hitherto untouched places, and the American military's advice to its troops is, "Get down with the people – listen to them!" Only four years and thousands of bombs and night missions too late.

Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist. Readers may contact her through ltarry@amuniversal.com.

Can you impeach a president just for going off the deep end?

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

I don't suppose it's a good thing that none of the Dems, save Biden, are willing to participate in a debate exclusively centered on Iraq.

When will it sink in for these candidates that no one really gaf about the rest of their platform if they have nothing to say about Iraq and fighting terrorism?

They've only had six years to think about it. :sarcasm:

If it were on any other network - that might be one thing, but I'm all for just not touching FNC with a ten foot pole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to the would-be debate at SAIS. From that article up thread:

Meanwhile, the Financial Times and the Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies have been trying to secure commitments from Democratic candidates to participate in a debate next week devoted exclusively to

Iraq. Biden, who has been demanding a war-only debate, is the only one so far to say he will attend.

Robert Guttman, the director of the center at Johns Hopkins said other campaigns have indicated interest and said some cable news organizations and public television have said they would cover the debate. It is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday's at Johns Hopkins' Kenney Auditorium.

Guttman said he planned to place chairs on the stage for the candidates, whether they attended or not.

"We're ready to roll, with full seats or empty seats," Guttman said.

[bflaff]

From what I've heard from Fred Thompson so far, he's indistinguishable from the non-Paul candidates in the Republican field, except for the fact that he's been in TV and movies. I suppose if the sheep need a shepherd, he can at least act like one.

And he has a break in that Republicans don't seem to be looking for actual policy ideas, mitigating the need to come up with any. Just give a thumbs down to surrendercrats, immigrants, and islamofacisthomoterrorism and you've got yourself a base. Any soulless hump can run that playbook. From Reuters:

Republican Thompson says U.S. battling "evil"

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) - Republican Fred Thompson, making his first appearance since his late entry into the 2008 White House race, criticized the immigration pact in Congress on Saturday and said the United States was battling threats from "forces of evil."

In a speech at a Virginia state party dinner, the conservative former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor made only passing reference to his presidential ambitions but took a jab at Democrats while praising limited government and lower taxes.

"There are all kinds of threats out there in America," Thompson said, citing a disrupted plot at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York as the latest example. He said the United States must send a message to its allies about the dangers of terrorism.

"This is a battle between the forces of civilization and the forces of evil and we've got to choose sides," Thompson said.

Thompson took the first formal step toward running on Friday with the formation in Tennessee of a committee that will allow him to hire staff and raise money for a presidential campaign.

His late candidacy, fueled in part by conservative dissatisfaction with the 10 official Republican candidates, has stirred heavy interest among curious activists and could fill a void for conservatives.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has led the field for months ahead of Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But many conservatives are dissatisfied with all three top contenders and Thompson already runs third in many national polls, ahead of Romney.

Thompson has broad name recognition from years as a Hollywood actor in movies like "The Hunt for Red October" and his just-concluded role of a district attorney on NBC's "Law and Order."

He won a standing ovation from the dinner crowd of more than 450 in Richmond with a call for stronger borders and an attack on the immigration compromise pending in Congress, and backed by President George W. Bush, that would give 12 million illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship.

"This is our home and we get to decide who can come into our home," he said.

He said Washington's partisan politics had bred cynicism about government and there was a "disconnect" between Washington politicians and Americans.

Thompson, a supporter of the Iraq war, also criticized the Democratic-controlled Congress for its debate on bills that would set withdrawal deadlines and timetables for U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The only real debate going on in Congress is what our surrender date is going to be," he said. "This is what passes for policy in the Democratic Party."

Thompson's only reference to his White House run was an aside after saying Republicans were on a comeback that would take "us" to the White House. He explained to laughter that the us meant "Republicans collectively."

Some of those in attendance said they liked what they heard from Thompson and hoped he could be the answer to their search for a candidate in 2008.

"I am not satisfied with the current set of candidates," said Keith Damon of Fairfax, Virginia. "I'm a conservative Republican and I'm looking for a conservative Republican.

"I liked everything he said but I'm not ready to commit. He definitely could be the answer."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also is considering a late entry in the Republican presidential race and will make a decision in the fall.

Thompson was Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate committee in the early 1970s before launching his acting career. He served eight years in the Senate but declined to run again in 2002.

[bflaff]

Since we're going to hear right on through the election that we're turning a corner in Iraq, or some such wishcasting, it is worth keeping in mind the analysis from this article, appearing in today's NYT:

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory

By EDWARD WONG

Published: June 3, 2007

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,†and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.

“Other Arabs say, ‘You are the country of sahel,’ †Razzaq said. “It has always been that way in Iraq.â€

But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive. No faction — not the Shiite Arabs or Sunni Arabs or Kurds — has been able to secure absolute power, and that has only sharpened the hunger for it.

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country’s helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

“We’ve changed nothing,†said Fakhri al-Qaisi, a Sunni Arab dentist turned hard-line politician who has three bullets lodged in his torso from a recent assassination attempt. “It’s dark. There will be more blood.â€

I first met Mr. Qaisi in 2003 at a Salafi mosque in western Baghdad, when the Sunni Arab insurgency was gaining momentum. He articulated the Sunnis’ simmering anger at being ousted from power. That fury has blossomed and is likely only to grow, as religious Shiite leaders and their militias become more entrenched in the government and as Kurds in the north push to expand their region and secede in all but name.

Caught in the middle of the civil war are the Americans. To Iraq’s factions, they are the weakest of all the armed groups in one crucial respect: their will is ebbing and their time here is limited. That leaves Iraqis more motivated than ever to cling to their weapons, preparing for what many see as an inevitable plunge into the abyss.

“Everyone — the Sunni, the Shia — is playing the waiting game,†an Iraqi leader told me over dinner at his home in the Green Zone. “They’re waiting out the Americans. Everyone is using time against you.â€

Much seemed different in April 2003, when the Americans pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square and allowed Iraqis to drag it through the streets. It looked like an act of sahel at the time, but the Americans failed to establish total control, as Iraqi history says a conqueror must.

Four years on, Sunni and Shiite attacks against the Americans are expanding. There is little love among Iraqi civilians for the troops, though many fear the anarchy that could follow an American withdrawal.

“I’m still sticking by my principle, which is against the occupation,†Mr. Qaisi said in an interview here while visiting from his new home in Tikrit. “I’m Iraqi, and I think the Iraqi people should have this principle. We have the right to defend our country as George Washington did.â€

As long as I have known him, Mr. Qaisi has rejected the idea that the Sunni Arabs are the minority in this country. To him and many other Sunni Arabs, the borders of Iraq do not delineate the boundaries of the war. The conflict is set, instead, against the backdrop of the entire Islamic world, in which demography and history have always favored the Sunnis. That sense of entitlement is fed by the notion that Iraq’s Shiite Arabs are just proxies for Iran’s Persian rulers.

For the Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraqis, the unalloyed hostility of the Sunni Arabs only reinforces a centuries-old sense of victimhood. So the Shiite militias grow, stoking vengeance. Through force of arms, and backed by the Americans and Iran, the religious Shiites intend to dominate the country entirely, taking what they believe was stripped from them when their revered leader Hussein was murdered in the desert of seventh-century Mesopotamia.

It was at the site of that ancient bloodletting, Karbala, that I twice witnessed the intense Shiite ache for righteousness and triumph. In early 2004, thousands of young fighters in the Mahdi Army, the militia of the nationalist Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, fought and died in a fevered uprising against the Americans. Last March, the same zealotry showed in a different way, as millions of Shiite pilgrims marched to Karbala’s shrines to commemorate the death of Hussein. They went despite relentless attacks by Sunni Arab suicide bombers. To them, it was all part of the unending war.

“No country in the world is fighting such terrorism,†said Adel Abdul Mehdi, an Iraqi vice president and leader in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a powerful Shiite party, on the day he made his pilgrimage. “Every time we give more martyrs, we are more determined. This is a big battle, there is no such battle in the world.â€

The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. “The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal,†he said.

The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans. Though the Americans have helped institute the representative system of government that the Shiites now dominate, they have failed to eliminate memories of how the first President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein to slaughter rebelling Shiites in 1991. Shiite leaders are all too aware, as well, of America’s hostility toward Iran, the seat of Shiite power, and of its close alliances with Sunni Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia.

“One day we’ll find that we’ve returned back to 1917,†said Sheik Muhammad Bakr Khamis al-Suhail, a respected Shiite neighborhood leader in Baghdad, referring to the installation here of a Sunni Arab monarchy by the British after World War I. “The pressure of the Arab countries on the American administration might push the Americans to choose the Sunni Arabs.â€

Sitting in the cool recesses of his home, the white-robed sheik said he was a moderate, a supporter of democracy. It is for people like him that the Americans have fought this war. But the solution he proposes is not one the Americans would easily embrace.

“In the history of Iraq, more than 7,000 years, there have always been strong leaders,†he said. “We need strong rulers or dictators like Franco, Hitler, even Mubarak. We need a strong dictator, and a fair one at the same time, to kill all extremists, Sunni and Shiite.â€

I was surprised to hear those words. But perhaps I was being naïve. Looking back on all I have seen of this war, it now seems that the Iraqis have been driving all along for the decisive victory, the act of sahel, the day the bodies will be dragged through the streets.

[Gordon Comstock]

the Iraqis will be greeting us in the streets with flowers goddammit

[Daaaaave]

"caging" will become the new political buzzword over the next month.

just watch.

[bflaff]

Seems I'm not the only one who thinks Obama and the Gang are better off working on Iraq instead of domestic issues. From an ABC News - Wash Po poll conducted last week:

Iraq remains the most important issue among Democrats. 29 percent of Democrats questioned in the poll say that the war in Iraq is the most important issue as they make their choice for the Democratic candidate for President. The war was far ahead of any other issue.

[Jason the Yank]

Hillary Clinton: Warrior Princess

[Jason the Yank]

Richardson suggesting the US should consider a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China won't cooperate in leaning on Sudan in regards to Darfur.

[Jason the Yank]

Gravel calling B.S. on Hillary talking about a balanced budget during the Clinton Administration.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Richardson suggesting the US should consider a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China won't cooperate in leaning on Sudan in regards to Darfur.

And Edwards agreed.

No one else did, as far as I could tell, when they did the 'raise your hands' poll on that question. (I liked how Blitzer's reliance on 'let's have a show of hands' was clearly annoying Obama by the second hour. Me, too.)

Boycotting Olympics is stupid to begin with, but to blame the Chinese for Darfur is ridiculous. And how lame that Richardson prefaced this turd idea by repeatedly mentioning that he had Darfur credentials? ('I visited there', or 'I was involved in this issue' or something like that. Anyway, point being he suggested that he knew more than most about this issue, in turn indicating that his ideas on it were more considered than most. You want to be 'the Darfur guy' and you think that idea is going to help you own the issue? Ha Ha.)

Richardson's Darfur dump did speak to a larger problem though, which, although I came in and out of the debate, seemed to be on display tonight. It seems to me that most of these candidates have embarrassingly few ideas about foreign policy. And the ones they did have sounded simplistic or naive. (Like boycotting the Olympics.)

What I heard tonight was that all conflicts can be solved by diplomacy. And failing that, sanctions. And we'll get Europe on board to make sure the sanctions hurt.

What? I can understand someone saying that because the military is so broken by Iraq we'll be forced to keep military options to a minimum for several years yet, but this is different. This is pretending that we don't need to use the military, that using the military is like using nukes -- possible in theory but not something that you'll ever actually do.

Doesn't anyone in that group remember Clinton's successful military campaign against Milosevic? That 'ahem, excuse me, please don't ethnically clease Bosnia, if you don't mind, if that's OK with you' didn't actually work? It needed military force to be successful. And whether or not the next prez is interventionist or isolationist, it is almost guaranteed that at some point in the next four years, a crisis will arise where some form of military force is utilized. We don't put all that money in their budget so they can sit around and play grabass in the barracks.

So when and why would these people use the military in their foreign policy? If you are running for President, you need to have a pretty clear standard in your own head for what kind of situations would make you consider using military force. I don't get a sense that many of them have thought this through (although Kucinich, the magic elf, probably wouldn't use the military ever, so I won't hold it against him if he hasn't performed this particular exercise).

Hillary conveys a sense that the military might be necessary in certain situations (like when she said that Iran must be prevented "at all costs" from acquiring nukes -- a statement which no doubt makes them redouble their efforts to get one), and Biden maybe as well, but I don't think Obama and Edwards really have done much strategic thinking. They seem exclusively enamored of soft power, and I don't ever hear them talk about how the military should be used.

But even with Hillary, it begs the question: don't any of these people have more than a passing interest in international relations? If they want to credibly speak about national security, they need one. All these chumps sucking at Shrum's teat thinking that domestic issues are going to win the election. CNN's Democratic analysts seemed unawares that a war was even going on, with Carville acknowledging that polls show that Iraq is clearly the most critical issue for Dem voters, before blithely saying that it's not the only important thing, and that voters are really worried about domestic issues. Oh yes, chimed in Donna Brazille, Democratic voters are really concerned about issues like healthcare, and so it was good that this debate really went into all these domestic issues. I guess so, if you say so.

It was telling that one of the early questions, something along the lines of, "Does George Bush deserve some credit for the fact that no acts of terrorism have occurred in the US since 9/11?" had everyone basically saying, 'no, Bush sucks', when the actual right answer was to say sure he deserves some credit, but any sane person would have done the same, and done everything in their power to make sure that terrorist attacks in the US were prevented. To say that whoever is sworn in in January 2009 will be doing just as much as Bush did to prevent terrorist attacks. And then, since you need to take shots, say that Bush has gone to excess in his efforts to protect the country, in ways which make us less safe. Then you look around at the other candidates and smile the smile of one who just pwned the question. Mouth 'deez nutz" to the camera.

The fact that Dems can't knock an easy one like this out of the park worries and annoys me. You can't not give good answers when someone asks about terrorism, or rogue states. Because like it or not, Bush got us committed to a big fight with them. You can't pretend otherwise, and visceral issues like war and terrorism are going to be a lot more prominent in the minds of voters than minimum wage hikes and education reform. So make your campaign about terrorism and war.

So Dems, please, go and answer these two questions. 1) How are you going to fight terrorism here in the US, and 2) how are you going to prevent the rise of terrorist groups and terrorist attacks worldwide?

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Richardson suggesting the US should consider a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China won't cooperate in leaning on Sudan in regards to Darfur.

And Edwards agreed.

No one else did, as far as I could tell, when they did the 'raise your hands' poll on that question. (I liked how Blitzer's reliance on 'let's have a show of hands' was clearly annoying Obama by the second hour. Me, too.)

Boycotting Olympics is stupid to begin with, but to blame the Chinese for Darfur is ridiculous. And how lame that Richardson prefaced this turd idea by repeatedly mentioning that he had Darfur credentials? ('I visited there', or 'I was involved in this issue' or something like that. Anyway, point being he suggested that he knew more than most about this issue, in turn indicating that his ideas on it were more considered than most. You want to be 'the Darfur guy' and you think that idea is going to help you own the issue? Ha Ha.)

Richardson's Darfur dump did speak to a larger problem though, which, although I came in and out of the debate, seemed to be on display tonight. It seems to me that most of these candidates have embarrassingly few ideas about foreign policy. And the ones they did have sounded simplistic or naive. (Like boycotting the Olympics.)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is a damn shame, because I actually like Richardson. I think he's the most qualified to be president *because* of his foreign policy background.

As much as I'd love to see us adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, even I have to admit there's a lot of fence-mending required (Edwards actually seemed to get this, IMO. Although I only got to see the 2nd half of the debate. I'll have to wait for the late night/early morning replay to give a better assessment). But the sort of "we're going to do everything different" mantra is a bit short-sighted.

Richardson has seemed a bit of a gaffe machine lately. (he had a horrible Meet the Press interview recently and if you can't knock Tim Russert's softballs out of the park, why are you running?) I'm shocked to say Dodd actually has gone up some in my estimation.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Richardson has seemed a bit of a gaffe machine lately. (he had a horrible Meet the Press interview recently and if you can't knock Tim Russert's softballs out of the park, why are you running?) I'm shocked to say Dodd actually has gone up some in my estimation.

It wasn't just you: Dodd did come off pretty well.

As for Richardson, he's just toxic. You can't pick him for a VP because you can guarantee he'd say around three things that would absolutely kill your campaign.

[Jason the Yank]

Biden also made a good point about Iran, that it's ridiculous to demand they give up a nuclear program (the only thing preventing us from invading), and then say we're committed to regime change in Iran.

And yet, at other times he's most hawkish one up there.

Not sure what to think of him.

[Jason the Yank]

BTW, Hillary is full of **** when she claims all of the Republican candidates supported the war and supported Bush's escalation.

Forgot about Ron Paul already?

[finneys13]

Edwards for President

[Jason the Yank]

Edwards does look strong, but I don't like how he proposes spending, spending, spending.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Richardson suggesting the US should consider a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China won't cooperate in leaning on Sudan in regards to Darfur.

And Edwards agreed.

No one else did, as far as I could tell, when they did the 'raise your hands' poll on that question. (I liked how Blitzer's reliance on 'let's have a show of hands' was clearly annoying Obama by the second hour. Me, too.)

Boycotting Olympics is stupid to begin with, but to blame the Chinese for Darfur is ridiculous. And how lame that Richardson prefaced this turd idea by repeatedly mentioning that he had Darfur credentials? ('I visited there', or 'I was involved in this issue' or something like that. Anyway, point being he suggested that he knew more than most about this issue, in turn indicating that his ideas on it were more considered than most. You want to be 'the Darfur guy' and you think that idea is going to help you own the issue? Ha Ha.)

Richardson's Darfur dump did speak to a larger problem though, which, although I came in and out of the debate, seemed to be on display tonight. It seems to me that most of these candidates have embarrassingly few ideas about foreign policy. And the ones they did have sounded simplistic or naive. (Like boycotting the Olympics.)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is a damn shame, because I actually like Richardson. I think he's the most qualified to be president *because* of his foreign policy background.

As much as I'd love to see us adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, even I have to admit there's a lot of fence-mending required (Edwards actually seemed to get this, IMO. Although I only got to see the 2nd half of the debate. I'll have to wait for the late night/early morning replay to give a better assessment). But the sort of "we're going to do everything different" mantra is a bit short-sighted.

Richardson has seemed a bit of a gaffe machine lately. (he had a horrible Meet the Press interview recently and if you can't knock Tim Russert's softballs out of the park, why are you running?) I'm shocked to say Dodd actually has gone up some in my estimation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing about Richardson that irritates the hell out of me is that he can't tell you what time it is without giving you half his resume first:

"What time is it, Governor?"

"Well, I'm glad you asked because of all the people up here - all of whom are well qualified to be president - I was the first governor of New Mexico to make sure that telling time was an essential part of our preschool curriculum, and would be in my proposed Universal Pre-K Program, and by the way, under my watch, New Mexico's education system went from 49th in the nation to 29th. Not only that, but six major publications from all across the political spectrum have noted - including the NY Times, in its editorial of January 17th, praising my programs for seniors - that I certainly know what time it is. And I learned how important that was while serving as Energy Secretary, and it would be even more important when I was president, relying on my wealth of foreign policy experience...it's 8:15."

[gunnerfan]

I thought the most interesting part of the debate was when Mike Gravel ripped the rest of them for allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to be used to offset the deficit, and not one of them had an answer.

I also thought the idea of boycotting the Olympics even more loopy than the last time we did it. At least then the host nation was the one committing the depredations.

[Kizzak]

I've just utterly stopped caring at this point. Can't be arsed to tune into a debate for more than five minutes while sober.

Of course if I'm drinking heavily, that's entirely different.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the most interesting part of the debate was when Mike Gravel ripped the rest of them for allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to be used to offset the deficit, and not one of them had an answer.

Agreed, that was great.

Republicans tomorrow. We get to see if Ron Paul makes Rudy Giuliani's head explode.

[gunnerfan]

Republicans tomorrow. We get to see if Ron Paul makes Rudy Giuliani's head explode

Yeah, who'd have ever guessed we'd live to see a resurgence of Arthur Vandenberg-styled Isolationist Republicans?? It can't too long before the rest of them let Paul know he is no longer welcome.

BTW, for the uninitiated, you can always tell when someone has gotten to Rudy: his eyes blink rapidly. Back when he was mayor, there was a reporter from El Diario who used to do it to him all the time.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the most interesting part of the debate was when Mike Gravel ripped the rest of them for allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to be used to offset the deficit, and not one of them had an answer.

Was he acting as if Bush was the first one to do that?

They've been pulling that trick for years actually.

In terms of the deficit, what they do is report the total deficit rather than the on-budget deficit (which does not include the mandatory spending items) - but it's still easy to go back and see what goes on as the CBO lists all that data and more in the public record.

In terms of subsidizing our debt, that also has been required of the SS Trust Fund for years and years because it's a safe and stable investment for the trust fund and it helps maintain demand for treasury bonds. It's only dangerous because the yearly surplus in the OASI account is headed into a deficit around 2017 and within 20-30 years after that may entirely exhaust the trust fund. Which means over that period, nearly 2 trillion dollars of debt will not be renewed by the trust fund and so interest rates will have rise to maintain demand if we can't manage to shed the vast majority of the rest of our debt.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the most interesting part of the debate was when Mike Gravel ripped the rest of them for allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to be used to offset the deficit, and not one of them had an answer.

Was he acting as if Bush was the first one to do that?

They've been pulling that trick for years actually.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Gravel said it in response to Hillary Clinton: Warrior Princess saying Bush had wiped out the Clinton-era "surplus."

[gunnerfan]

Raiding the Trust Fund started shortly after TEFRA was passed in 1982. Moynihan screamed bloody murder and no one listened.

[Jason the Yank]

Craig Thomas, the senior senator from Wyoming, has died.

Under Wyoming law, the Republicans as the party controlling that office will forward 3 nominees to Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who will then pick 1 to be the interim senator. That seat will then be contested at the next general election (2008).

[bflaff]

Somewhere someone is knocking Harry Reid on the head and saying, "Hello? McFly?"

Discontent Over Iraq Increasing, Poll Finds

Americans Also Unhappy With Congress

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, June 5, 2007; A01

Growing frustration with the performance of the Democratic Congress, combined with widespread public pessimism over President Bush's temporary troop buildup in Iraq, has left satisfaction with the overall direction of the country at its lowest point in more than a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Almost six in 10 Americans said they do not think the additional troops sent to Iraq since the beginning of the year will help restore civil order there, and 53 percent -- a new high in Post-ABC News polls -- said they do not believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.

Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents and liberal Democrats. While independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved. Among liberal Democrats, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points.

Bush's overall job-approval rating stands at 35 percent, unchanged from April.

Many Democratic activists have complained that the 2006 midterm election results represented a call for a course change in Iraq and that so far the Democratic-controlled Congress has failed to deliver.

Deep public skepticism about Iraq, concerns about the Democrats and Bush, and near-record-high gasoline prices appear to have combined to sour the overall mood in the country. In the new poll, 73 percent of Americans said the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, while 25 percent said things are going in the right direction.

That gap is marginally wider than it was at the beginning of the year and represents the most gloomy expression of public sentiment since January 1996, when a face-off between President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress over the budget led to an extended shutdown of the federal government.

Among the nearly three-quarters of Americans expressing a pessimistic viewpoint, about one in five blamed the war for their negative outlook, and about the same ratio mentioned the economy, gas prices, jobs or debt as the main reason for their dissatisfaction with the country's direction. Eleven percent cited "problems with Bush," and another 11 percent said "everything" led them to their negative opinion.

The new poll showed that Americans have recalibrated their view of who is taking the lead in Washington. Earlier this year, majorities of Americans said they believed that the Democrats were taking the initiative in the capital, but now there is an even split, with 43 percent saying Bush is taking the stronger leadership role and 45 percent saying the Democrats are.

That shift occurred across the political spectrum. In April, 59 percent of independents said Democrats were taking a stronger role, but that figure has dropped 15 points, to 44 percent.

The political machinations over the Iraq war funding bill have been the dominant news event in Congress for much of the spring, and the Democrats' removal of the provision linking funding to a withdrawal deadline came shortly before the poll was taken.

In April, the public, by a 25-point margin, trusted the Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq. In this poll, Democrats maintained an advantage, but by 16 points. There has been an erosion of support for Democrats on this issue, but not a corresponding movement to Bush. Among independents, trust for the Democrats is down eight points, mostly because of a six-point bump in the percentage who said they trust "neither."

Congressional Democrats also are preferred over Bush -- whose own approval ratings remain near career lows -- on immigration (by 17 percentage points), the economy (by 18 points) and even, albeit narrowly, on handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism (by six points).

But it is the war in Iraq -- the most important issue in the 2006 campaign -- that has the most potential to reshape the political landscape.

Overall, 61 percent in this poll said the war was not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds said the United States is not making significant progress restoring civil order in Iraq. However, there is no such general agreement about what to do.

In this poll, 55 percent -- a new high -- said the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be decreased, but only 15 percent advocated an immediate withdrawal of American troops. An additional 12 percent said U.S. forces should be out of Iraq sometime this year.

Since the Iraqi parliamentary elections in November 2005, consistent majorities of Americans have said U.S. troops should be drawn down; support for an immediate, complete withdrawal has also remained relatively stable, never exceeding two in 10. And there similarly has been little change across party lines: 25 percent of the Democrats surveyed wanted all American military forces out of Iraq now, compared with 13 percent of independents and 6 percent of Republicans, with all percentages about the same as in late 2005. Support for the immediate removal of U.S. forces peaked at 32 percent among African Americans.

Public attitudes about the size of U.S. military forces in Iraq and about the war more generally are closely related to views about the centrality of the situation in Iraq to the broader battle against terrorism, another flashpoint between Bush and congressional Democrats. (In this poll, nearly six in 10 agreed with the Democratic position that the two are separate issues.) Overall, more than seven in 10 of those who said Iraq is an essential component of the terrorism fight wanted U.S. troop levels in Iraq to be increased or kept the same, while more than seven in 10 of those seeing the issues as separate thought that some or all troops should be withdrawn. Among independents who said the United States can succeed against terrorism without winning in Iraq, 70 percent supported decreasing troop levels, compared with 23 percent of those who saw victory in Iraq as pivotal.

This Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 29 to June 1 among a random sample of 1,205 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling error margins are higher for subgroups.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

[Jason the Yank]

No problem, Bob Shrum will take care of it.

[Kizzak]

Need a debate drinking list for tonight STAT.

[Jason the Yank]

And we're off!

[Jason the Yank]

Romney gets to answer if "was it a mistake to go into Iraq?"

Promptly blames it on Saddam.

[Jason the Yank]

Giuliani says it was the right thing to do. "Iraq is part of the overall war against the United States"

[Jason the Yank]

McCain says he didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Brownback says he doesn't remember if he did so, but says he's going to support a 3-state solution.

[Jason the Yank]

Gilmore says we couldn't have seen the instability resulting from the removal of Iraq.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

McCain gets a question about what happens if Pettreus says the surge hasn't worked. McCain argues the 5th brigade hasn't been sent over. Repeats the same "they'll follow us home" ********.

[Jason the Yank]

Thompson says we should demand that the Iraq government vote on whether or not we stay.

Basically wants to graft American federalism onto Iraq. Probably a ridiculous idea, but it does put the onus on the Iraqi government.

Duncan Hunter says he did read the NIE.

Ron Paul says "the sooner we come home the better."

[Jason the Yank]

Huckabee a moron. "It was Ronald Reagan who brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. The Taliban think they did."

Well, yeah, Afghanistan turned to the USSR's Vietnam.

Tancredo says it's up to the Iraqis to decide what kind of government they want. Basically argues for an Iraqization of the war.

[Jason the Yank]

HAHA.

Brownback basically argues we should support the Iranian bus drivers union.

[Jason the Yank]

Duncan Hunter argues for talking, but that we should "reserve the right to pre-empt" the Iranian nuclear program.

Says he's willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if it comes to that.

BOOM.

Giuliani says not to take any options off the table, including tactical nuclear weapons.

Gilmore goes off about Iranian desires to dominate the region and that our presence in Iraq forestalls that. ROFL. Also refuses to take tactical nuclear weapon strike off the table.

Romney does the same. Argues that people are testing us in various places. "We're not arrogant, we have resolve." Basically thinks we're going to encourage the moderates to take control of Islam. ROFL.

[Jason the Yank]

Tancredo gets to talk about immigration and his vow to fight for the defeat of any Republican who supports the immigration bill.

Says it's about "whether we will survive as a nation" and split apart like the Balkans. Come on Tom, you should know a lot of Westerners wouldn't mind telling DC to ****.

[Jason the Yank]

Giuliani wants an ID card for immigrants. First step, Il Duce?

Romney specifically targets the Z-visa concept. Argues it's unfair to the people going through the regular system to immigrate. Actually a fairly reasonable answer, IMO.

McCain goes after Giuliani's criticism of the proposal. Argues that it was a compromise involving everyone coming together and trying to figure out an approach to the problem. Says he's willing to listen to other ideas if anyone has them, which prompts a bunch of hands to go up from other candidates.

[Daaaaave]

gop primaries great because it's just a contest to see how can out-kook the other.