Hagel-Bloomberg?

The hinting around sure is getting heavy-handed. I'm not sure how much sense he's really making, though. "I am not happy with the Republican Party today," Hagel said. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors."

This doesn't really strike me as what you'd call a coherent critique of the reigning orthodoxy, though it certainly does seem to me like Hagel would be better than your average Republican on these issues. On the other hand, it would be extremely hard to reconcile Chuck Hagel's longstanding positions on the issues with Bloomberg's existing political profile and it doesn't seem like either of these guys is especially inclined to run on the bottom of a ticket. Probably both of them are just wasting time and enjoying the attention speculation brings.

Comments

Isolationist?

Posted by Freddie | May 14, 2007 1:01 AM

I think Hagel should substitute unilateralist for isolationist.

Posted by Rich | May 14, 2007 1:07 AM

If something along those lines happens I see it being good for the D's because a Hagel-Bloomberg or Bloomberg-Hagel ticket would take more votes away from the R's. But I agree with MY that, right now, it is more about the 2 of them are enjoying quality "face time" in the MSM than it is serious talk...

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 1:14 AM

I'm not sure I agree.

If Bloomberg and the Dems are both pro-choice and for a withdrawal/redeployment of troops in Iraq (depending on the facts on the ground next year), center-left voters could be split, which could benefit the Repos.

Of course, there would be electoral college issues...

Posted by Rich | May 14, 2007 2:31 AM

Bloomberg is a major supporter of the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq, something I wish more low information voters, and apparently Senator Hagel is one of them, were aware of.

Posted by Ed | May 14, 2007 5:06 AM

Do you have a link for Bloomberg's position on Iraq?

Posted by Rich | May 14, 2007 6:11 AM

Hagel's comment is pure nonsense. I have to think if he won't even run for his own party's nomination, he won't be running for a 3rd party. Definitely just a play for attention.

Any third party run hurts the Dems. The south will stay with the Repubs no matter what, but a third party especially with Bloomberg could put some northeastern states in play.

Posted by Ron | May 14, 2007 6:45 AM

No, the Bushites are the true descendants of the isolationists. They reject all international insttutions--they don't even treat the rest of the world as real--just a prop for their domestic political dramas . . .

Posted by rea | May 14, 2007 7:09 AM

Hagel's comment is not even coherent.

An "isolationist" is the opposite of a "power projector". And "insulationist" isn't even a word.

What a maroon.

Posted by Al | May 14, 2007 8:04 AM

Bloomberg has pointedly remained silent on Iraq http://nymag.com/news/politics/25015/, but campaigned aggressively for Lieberman. Given he has been taken other national stances on the environment and gun control, it's hard to see where he and Hagel actually agree.

Posted by Davey | May 14, 2007 8:31 AM

Yeah, the pairing of a pro-choice moderate New York Democrat-turned-Republican with an anti-choice conservative Nebraska Republican would split the Democratic vote and ensure a Republican victory. Because Democratic voters are longing either for a social conservative who did nothing to check Bush while he was in the majority, or for a socially-moderate New York politician who's hawkish on the Middle East. The latter, especially, would really fill a void in the current field.

Posted by mds | May 14, 2007 8:41 AM

I have a bias against Senators who have no experience running a large organization. I prefer to see someone who has been a governor, a top general, a CEO or even a VP of the USA be the candidate for POTUS. Of course Abe Lincoln did a great job so this is a preference not a requirement.

Why? It helps to have experience putting together a plan and then dealing with the nitty-gritty of getting it implemented.

Bloomberg would make a great President from the operational perspective. He built a great company, has run NY City well and his staff picks have been very good - clearly superior to Giuliani's. Bloomberg's international skills seem untested and as a Republican his support for the current Iraq situation is possibly more politics than substance.

He is not an ideologue or a zealot. If you have not been aware of how he works visit Bloomberg’s New York City Plan 2030 website. Read his 2006 kickoff speech inviting participation in the final stage of the planning process.

I would dearly like to see such a sense of planning for the future on a Federal level.

Posted by JRip | May 14, 2007 8:55 AM

A Bloomberg/Hagel ticket could be very attractive, particularly if the other candidates were McCain and Hilary.

1. Recall that Ross Perot attracted 19% of the vote in 1992 when there was considerable dissatisfaction with the other two candidates. I suspect that the level of dissatisfaction with McCain and Hilary would be at least as high as was the case with Bush 1 and Clinton.

2. Recall also that Perot was unable to attract a high profile vice presidential candidate who could be seen as a potential president. This would not be the case with Hagel as a vice presidential candidate.

3. Although such a ticket would be a long shot at best, it might have enough influence on the campaign to force the other two candidates to come clean with the electorate. It should be recalled that Perots' making the federal deficit a campaign issue led to the balanced budgets of the last two years of the Clinton administration.

4. Unlike Perot who had never run for public office, Bloomberg has a political record to run on as having been twice elected mayor of New York.

5. There is also a distinct possibility that a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket could capture a few states with sufficient electoral votes to deny either of the other two candidates a majority in the Electoral College. This would open up all kinds of possibilities, including throwing the presidential election into the House of Representatives and the vice presidential election into the Senate.

Posted by SLC | May 14, 2007 9:20 AM

I have a bias against Senators who have no experience running a large organization...

A bias invented almost entirely for the purpose of promoting Bush's prospects in 2000 over Gore.

I have a bias towards presidents who can ram their legislative agenda through congress has quickly and as forcefully as possible. A Senator would be good at that.

The operational issues are going to be very important after 2008-- specifically to reorganize the federal government, purge the Bushist fanatics who sneaked into the civil service, and get rid of the system of placing political officers as overseers at all levels of government and reorganize things to ensure that what happened under Bush at places like the DoJ and FEMA don't happen again. However, that's a special case for the post-2008 environment.

When we vote for a president, we are primarily concerned about his agenda and his ability to get his agenda through Congress. A close second is his ability to function as a respected leader. The former skillset, especially, is not one that being a CEO provides any training for whatsoever.

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 9:28 AM

Re Tyro

But, in fact, Bloomberg has had 5 years as mayor of New York City and apparently has been able to get his agenda through a city council heavily dominated by members of the other political party.

Posted by SLC | May 14, 2007 9:45 AM

Bloomberg is too pragmatic to make an expensive, doomed third-party run. If he were to throw his hat in, it would be because he believed something important could be achieved, either that he'd actually win or that some concrete good could obtain.

Keeping the speculation afloat, however, does play into his current interests, among which are 1) to promote his NYC long-term planning and 2) to force national attention to cities-issues, like gun control and environmentalism.

Posted by Jackmormon | May 14, 2007 10:15 AM

I was at a Republican event Nagel headlined last year and was unimpressed. He spoke incoherently, without logic, as if he was just stringing sound bite after sound bite together. He is unhappy, to be sure. But he had too many inconsistencies in what upset him - he'd gripe about one thing and then deride the only solution possible.

He struck me as a man who just likes to hear his own voice far too much more than a serious politician. The only reason he gets any headlines (that feed his ego) is because he's a turncoat within his own party.

Does he or Bloomberg think a Rudy campaign would be a campaign taken over by "the extremists" within the party? If so, he is even more full of delusional paranoia than I thought when I saw him in person.

And do R's who bail in September think voters will make a "good republican/bad republican" distinction in November 2008?

Either we make things work in Iraq or find a way to get the public back on the side of victory or EVERY Republican will be punished in 2008, voters don't make those kinds of distinctions and the party will not win another election outside of seats that enjoy 70% party affiliation for at least a decade.

Despite voter sentiment, the Dems are dead wrong on the stakes in Iraq. Our enemies, from Al-Qaida to Iran to Syria to Chavez to China to Putin, will see us lose because we turned tail. Our allies will have a "plan b" knowing that we get going when the going gets tough. That is a dreadfull world for the U.S. going forward. Our enemies know it and continue to try to exploit it.

By winning this public relations war for the will of the American people the Democrats will have us lose far more than a "civil sectarian war" in Iraq; They brag that they "killed the Patriot Act" and will repeal every provision that has kept us secure; They will focus on responding to attacks rather than preventing them. It will be 9/10 all over again at home.

They will ask us to accept the threat of massive terrorist attacks that kill tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans as a "risk of life in 2007" that we should accept and treat as a typical street crime we solve.

I don't care to see that kind of life in America. As a veteran, I know that our military exists to protect civilians. Democrats want civilians to be used as human shields to protect the military.

And Nebraska's Nagel can run and ensure that outcome in Omaha or Lincoln and every other city across this great land.

America's choice.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 1:30 PM

For all of the people who think that a 3rd party run by Hagel/Bloomberg would hurt the D's, I think you are wrong. It will hurt the D's just like Perot's runs in 90's did...which of course those didn't. The culturally conservative R's won't break ranks, they will always vote R. But the enough moderate right leaning Indies, who would probably vote R, will be picked off by a Hagel/Bloomberg run and help the D's...

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 1:34 PM

Our allies will have a "plan b"

Too bad we didn't have one of those for Iraq. Would've been useful.

And Nebraska's Nagel...

You made this mistake twice. Do you not know the name of the junior senator from Nebraska, or is this some kind of rush-limbaugh nickname that's been coined for him that the rest of us haven't heard about?

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 2:57 PM

POSTED BY: Mike
Despite voter sentiment, the Dems are dead wrong on the stakes in Iraq.

Despite voter sentiment? That sounds very ominous to me. It sends a message that politicians should no longer be held accountable to the people. The vast majority want us out of Iraq...because they are perceptive enough to realize that Bush's handling of the Iraq War is worsening the problem of Muslim extremism exponentially. But here we hear "the voters be damned!!!" What's next? Doing away with Presidential term limits for the good of the country...suspension of elections because if the Dems get in we will be attacked? What a load of crap!!!

All the R's have left is to play "The Fear Card" because everything they have done up to this point not only hasn't worked it has been counterproductive and an abject policy failure...we have created many more enemies in the Muslim World, who want to hurt us, than existed before 9/11 thanks to Dubya and Dick "Dr. Evil" Cheney.

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 3:53 PM

Tyro, et al:

Agreed about better planning for Iraq. Doesn't make it the "wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons" or a "war concocted for political gain like you MoveOn wackos claim.

Conservatives don't disagree with you about how the war has been mangled by this president. But your ilk goes too far in condemning him for engaging it when 97-1 senators of both parties voted for it.

You'd have far greater credibility with the public on our nation's defense and demonstrate a concern for protecting our way of life if instead of trying to rewrite history to say that it was a "rush to war by neocons" you acknowledge that EVERYBODY, including the French, Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid agreed we needed to take Saddam out when we did.

Then tell us how you would fight our enemies in Iraq and other hostile areas in a manner that is proactive to protect us, rather than reactive to console us.

But, all you can do is say what we shouldn't have done and join our enemies chorus rather than show us what you'd do instead to beat them.

Leaving Iraq now is nothing less than waiving a white flag to our enemies. Period. You're ready to show the world that the U.S. is full of such chickenshits that a rag-tag bunch of terrorists supported by state sponsors Iran and Syria is more powerful than all our might.

Much of power is derived from perception of strength. If we lose in Iraq because liberals surrendered to a weaker foe we lose our perceived power around the world which makes us MORE likely to be attacked and in a perpetual state of war, not a nation at peace and security.

By the way, the "plan b" I referred to our allies being forced to adopt after we show we are not a dependable friend is a horrific outcome for the U.S. Any "plan b" a current ally would adopt will necessarily be an alliance with our foes, or at a minimum total neutrality as our foes gain strength and we are left to fight them off by truly "going it alone".

I wish you liberals were able to put our country over partisan gain. We all know Bush has been a terrible wartime president. He has not rallied and maintained public support the way a truly inspirational president should.

To his credit he did the right thing to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and champion the Patriot Act (minus the Justice Department's inclusion of drug crimes and other non-terrorist threatening intrusions on liberty).

But if he was going to prove to be such an inarticulate, unconcerned communicator who was incapable of keeping the public support by reminding us what is at stake I'm beginning to think twice.

The first presidential candidate who jumps up and says it was the right war, but the wrong leader to lead it and who has a plan and determination to win in Iraq I'll support - and will care less about party affiliation.

Unfortunately, Democrats who don't say that will probably win in 2008 since Republicans can't find a spine to make this argument. And R's will be out of power for a decade until the public gets tired of ourright socialism in America, 50-70% tax rates it takes to sustain socialism and they get angry about their family members, friends and neighbors they'll lose to horrific acts of terror in the interim.

At that time, I'll join with the chorus of conservatives that says Democrats cost them the lives of their loved ones by their actions and words today. And then, hopefully, Democrats will become a party in the wilderness for at least 50 years because the public will have a taste of what being short-sighted partisans results in.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 4:04 PM

And then, hopefully, Democrats will become a party in the wilderness for at least 50 years because the public will have a taste of what being short-sighted partisans results in.

No I see the R's starting that wilderness journey because they tried to use fear in the wake of 9/11 to further their partisan political agenda of holding onto power at all costs. Short sighted is making more enemies in the long term while "claiming" they have kept us safe but only in the short term. Our military was given an impossible task of defeating a non-military opponent in the form of extremist Muslims and no amount of military force will "defeat" that enemy...

Time we returned to sanity in our foreign policy...and say "no" to more neocon lies.

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 4:23 PM

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude:

Despite voter sentiment? That sounds very ominous to me.

Okay, Lincoln should have sued for peace with the South in 1863 - public sentiment was against him, but the public was wrong.

Eisenhower should have been fired because of D-Day and the Bulge - totally bungled -- oh yeah, the press corps and Hollywood were actually SUPPORTIVE of the U.S. then, so the public never was prodded to oppose WWII and didn't turn against the war.

It is you liberals who are blind and really full of fear mongering: end term limits, stop free elections in the U.S., Dr. Evil., etc.

You think we created more enemies in the Middle East by our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, our support for Israel (almost forgot - liberals today are about as anti-jewish as 1930's Germans were)?

If you've ever taken the time to read bin Laden and other Islamic screeds against the U.S. and the west our military presence in the Middle East and support for Israel accounts for only two paragraphs out of 20-page missives.

The other "greivances" concern the culture we export to the world intruding on their lives. They fear their daughters growing up to be like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton more than they dislike American soldiers.

They loathe the prospect of "The Queer Eye for the Muslim Guy" more than they fear GWB. They see their culture under assault from western culture and hate how we esteem conduct that they believe should be shamed and scorned.

But you liberals don't accept those greivances because that would mean confronting your own value system that generates such resentment across the globe in more pious cultures.

This is truly one of the oddest things about this war and who supports it and opposes it: conservatives who abhor the same shameful things about our society support it; liberals who would be stoned to death by this enemy for their amoral beliefs oppose it.

Liberals showed up at a recent Harvard speech by former "moderate" Iranian president Rafsanjani and applauded vigorously for him less than 30 seconds after he said "homosexuals are ONLY punished by death in Iran in the most extreme cases".

Conservatives who you fear as being intolerant are actually fighting an intolerant enemy for tolerance of values they don't even share.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 4:29 PM

liberals today are about as anti-jewish as 1930's Germans were

"Jews-who-voted-overwhelmingly-for-Kerry-are-just-like-the-Nazis." great argument.

Mike, there's not a politician in this land who considers Iraq particularly important. The only reason we're staying at the moment is because Bush doesn't want to be known as "thepresident who pulled out of Iraq." It's only you and your fellow fanatics who care. The rest of the country and its leaders are focused on a graceful extrication. It will probably include a victory parade to make everyone feel better about the issue, if that is what it takes.

Any "plan b" a current ally would adopt will necessarily be an alliance with our foes

Yep. Because the only choice for other countries is to agree with everything the United States does or ally with America's enemies to fight the USA. Right. Ok. (steps away slowly)

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 4:42 PM

Mike Bloomberg for president? Sorry -- a nasally-voiced New York Jew isn't going to be terribly popular around America, especially when the CW among many populists is that it was primarily Jewish neocons who facilitated the war (these populists seem oblivious to the Jewish pundits like MY who have flipped on the war, or Jewish politicians like Sen. Feingold who were against the war from the beginning). Nevertheless, perceptions matter.

Posted by Heather | May 14, 2007 4:44 PM

The public could have voted Lincoln out if they were that much opposed to the Civil War. Did they?

You try to draw comparisons from history that don't hold up. What has been accomplished with our Iraq War? Nothing positive that I see. We have unleashed sectarian strife in Iraq. The conflict in Afghanistan has devolved and is worsening while we wrestle with the quagmire of our own creation in Iraq. And just off the top of my head there have been terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Istanbul (2), Egpyt (2), Jordan, and Bali (2). If they feel that their culture is under attack that attack has been since 9/11 and our imposition of our power in that region under the guise of Bush's policy of "fighting global terrorism". You are trying to conflate a marginal (marginal pre-9/11) Muslim extremist movement into a broader movement among Muslims in general, which did not exist before 9/11/01. They more resent imperialist military forces in their region for what appears to be an indefinite future and not our "social values".

But there is no arguing with you. We need to stay there centuries trying to win an unwinnable fight because of some foolish notion that we "cannot" lose that unwinnable war. Tell me Mike how is our military gonna defeat Muslim extremism on the field of battle? Our military's job is to fight other military forces...they did their job and Saddam's army was dispatched with post haste. How are they gonna now defeat an unconventional force? I don't see that victory being a feasible outcome...Are you suggesting we employ the old Crusader mentality of "Kill them all and let their God sort it out"?

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 4:55 PM

Tyro, et al:

Liberal gays in the audience at Harvard applauded Iran's Rafsanjani moments after he said "homosexuals only get the death penalty in the most extreme cases in Iran" (like if they actually engage in a gay sex act - it's okay to be gay in the mind, just resist any urges you may have under penalty of death).

So it is not surprising that liberal jews voted for Kerry. Each group has the luxury of safety and security in America, free from a murderous government that targets them.

You are dead wrong when you say there are no politicians who consider Iraq important".

And you're dead wrong about there being a "graceful extrication" possible from Iraq short of prevailing and having the terrorists wave the white flag instead of us.

You are doing what every liberal does and continue to criticize what we've done. I'd like your next post to share with us what the U.S. should do to combat this enemy.

Let me guess, Democrat talking points are "secure our ports, more inspections of containers, more money for first responders, follow the advice of the Iraq Study Group".

Problem is, all of those things are reactive, not proactive. Liberals would rather have the world's consolatory sentiments after we have another 9/11 and mourn the innocent lives lost than prevent the loss of life in the first place. So my specific question is what would you do to save our fellow American's lives?

The police approach to terrorism is reactive with occassionally getting intelligence that prevents it. But, you liberals don't even want us to do business with bad guys who might have information that could protect us - image and all.

Who gives police better information about what's going on in the gangs in town - the pastor in that neighborhood or another gangster?

Police are great at solving your murder, but can't do much to prevent it. I'd rather be alive and hated by those with a predisposition to hate me than dead and have my relatives receive condolences from people they don't know.

There is not an exit short of victory that our enemies won't seize on and use against us and encourage them to launch even more attacks.

You continue to miss the central tenet of their hate for us - our culture, not our military presence. Once again, you can't even acknowledge what they put in print and mean as surely as Hitler meant Mein Kampf - they hate our culture and will defeat it. Our military presence is secondary or tertiary to them.

How would you address their deep-seeded fears about our gay, secularist, porn, obscene hip-hop culture that is full of ungodly temptations they see as equivalent to Sodom and Gomorrah?

Mind you, I'm a libertarian and personally have little fear of these concerns - just relating our enemies words and concerns they believe with all that they are.

Please address these, if you can. If not, you're just a parrot of what you hear on Air America and from your MoveOn rallys and not worthy of additional debate.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 5:11 PM

Liberal gays in the audience at Harvard applauded Iran's Rafsanjani moments after he said "homosexuals only get the death penalty in the most extreme cases in Iran" (like if they actually engage in a gay sex act - it's okay to be gay in the mind, just resist any urges you may have under penalty of death).

Um cite?

Oh yeah, Khatami.
And your talking point is not that he was cheered, but that he wasn't jeered like Jerry Falwell would have been.

Glad to be of service.

Posted by Barbar | May 14, 2007 5:26 PM

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude:
"The public could have voted Lincoln out if they were that much opposed to the Civil War. Did they?"
"You are trying to conflate a marginal (marginal pre-9/11) Muslim extremist movement into a broader movement among Muslims in general, which did not exist before 9/11/01."

Lincoln absolutely would have lost reelection had he not fired Gen. McClellan and got some victories on the battlefield. The war was going terribly and the public clamored for him to sue for peace in 1863. Public opinion polls at the time (as much as can be derived from sources of the day) were 2-1 against continuing the war. Was the public right?

Let's see: Munich 1973, Iran hostage crisis 1979, Beirut 1983, Achille Laurel 1985, countless plane hijackings 1970's-1990's, WTC garage bomb 1993 African embassy bombings 1998, USS Cole 2000 - all Muslim extremists killing for religious exaltion and all PRE-9/11/01. I'm sure I left a few out.

You're right, we can't beat a foe like them with purely military action. We need to be a nation that speaks with a single voice (no shadow President-wanna-be Pelosi undermining the single voice we elect to negotiate with the world), speaks with resolve and unity of purpose and has the military might projected forward to act on our words.

The military might is there, we have one voice speaking this way, but it is not with a unity of purpose and the world and our foes know this. That being the case, it's like confronting an armed robber who sees your gun, hears you pull the trigger but then nothing happens - its empty. He doesn't fear you and will kill you.

If Bush had it to do all over again he should have brought some high-profile Democrats into his administration after 9-11 to demonstrate it is a bipartisan effort. He didn't (to his detriment), but it was the right war, right decision, wrong leader.

Unlike Vietnam, this enemy will not stop attacking us if/when we surrender in Iraq or even got totally out of the Middle East and gave up Israel.

And, Heather's anti-Jewish remarks highlight how much the American left has become like Germany's NAZI party in their disdain for the Jew. Unfortunately for Heather, America's Jews (as long as the 2nd Amendment is protected) will not go like cattle to bake in ovens. They'll launch thousands of Warsaw ghetto-like rebellions and take as many SS supporters like Heather with them as they can. Racist Bitch.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 5:41 PM

The funny thing is that Mike is a libertarian.

Posted by Barbar | May 14, 2007 5:52 PM

Barbar - good catch Rafsanjani - he preceeded Khatami who was the one I meant.

My point was that liberals and gays cheered on a man who would be comfortable with and actually oversaw the imprisonment and executions of their kind in Iran.

To your point, yes, these liberal and gays would cheer this man with blood on his hand and jeer someone like Falwell (who I have great misgivings about - I'm not a moralist) who has no blood on his hand. It absolutely baffles the mind of a logical human being.

Liberals and gays hate conservatives in America who are fighting for their right to be whatever they want to be, and are infatuated with Islamic extremists who will actually kill them or put them in prison. Their perspective is dangerously and suicidally askew.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 5:52 PM

The funny thing is that Mike is a libertarian.

LOL...Mike might "claim" he is a libertarian but he sure sounds like one of those "chaste" Bible thumpers who seem to be preoccupied with all things sexual.

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 6:07 PM

One clue to help ease your bafflement is that Khamani has no political or cultural power in the United States, where most Harvard students live.

A second clue is that conservatives in America are not actually fighting for their right to be whatever they want to be.

A third clue is that liberals are not actually "infatuated" with Islamic extremists.

Did you know that Donald Rumsfeld held Saddam Hussein in the highest esteem? There is a picture of the two of them shaking hands.

Posted by Barbar | May 14, 2007 6:08 PM

Yes, I am very libertarian on most issues. Environmental issues don't fit cleanly within libertarianism. The drug war is insane. If we had allocated DEA resources and its intelligence gathering capabilities to our nation's defense maybe 9/11 would not have happened. If a guy loves a guy I don't care. If a woman is not prepared to be a mother or carry a baby to term for adoption it is her decision. Quit spending taxpayer money on social programs that create long-term dependance on government rather than foster independence from government.

I supported the Patriot Act and its programs monitoring bank transfers and wiretapping overseas communications to go after extraordinary terrorist actors.

I opposed the Patriot Act provisions that gave the Justice department their Christmas list of legal tools to go after ordinary domestic crime like drug trafficking and tax fraud.

All that being said, this libertarian believes it is the proper roll of government to use a national military to protect its citizenry. Our nation failed us when secretaries were jumping 110 floors to their death at the hand of foreign enemies. We put soldiers overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan to put them between us and our enemies.

Because citizens now perceive our military is overly burdened liberal Democrats want to put citizens between us and our military. I'm a veteran. This is ass-backwards.

There is not a person in uniform today who didn't join the military or re-up since 9/11, and 90% of them did so since we went into Iraq. They believe in their mission. They know they stand between civilians and terrorists who mean us harm. They want to finish the job.

Well-meaning, but ignorant civilians are poised to force them to surrender at the constant urging of liberals and their media friends. It is a tragedy we will surely pay the price for someday in our shopping malls, food, electric and water supply and in our entertainment arenas.

And then civilians will ask "why didn't they protect us?" Obscene failure to lead because our politicians worried about the politics of the day rather than doing right by them will be the answer.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 6:16 PM

Let's see: Munich 1973, Iran hostage crisis 1979, Beirut 1983, Achille Laurel 1985, countless plane hijackings 1970's-1990's, WTC garage bomb 1993 African embassy bombings 1998, USS Cole 2000 - all Muslim extremists killing for religious exaltion and all PRE-9/11/01. I'm sure I left a few out.

Thanks for making my point Mike. All those incidents happened in an almost 30 year period and still don't add up to the number of attacks I listed above that have occurred since we invaded Iraq...and I know I have missed some on my list too.

With all the spinning you're doing you're not dizzy yet?

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | May 14, 2007 6:16 PM

We get it Mike.

1. There are brown Muslims who want to kill us.
2. September 11 was really scary.
3. There are brown Muslims in Iraq.
4. If soldiers are in Iraq and stuff is blowing up, it seems as if we are making progress in fighting against whatever scared the shit out of us on September 11.

It's all so coherent and well thought out.

Posted by Barbar | May 14, 2007 6:39 PM

You are dead wrong when you say there are no politicians who consider Iraq important.

Oh really? Are any politicians calling for a draft? Are there any calls for national sacrifice in order to support the war effort? No, and none of them ever will. Why? Because they all realize that in the scheme of things, the occupation of Iraq is not that big of a national priority.

Everyone is focused on getting the US out of Iraq with the least embarrassment possible. Bush's focus is to kick the ball far enough downfield that he is not personally to blame when we pull out, but pretty much everyone else wants to leave.

So it is not surprising that liberal jews voted for Kerry. Each group has the luxury of safety and security in America, free from a murderous government that targets them.

You equated liberals, and by extension the Jews who overwhelmingly broke for Kerry, with Nazis. That is really screwed up.

Was the public right?

Well, would the public have been right to abandon a war that they were going to lose? I think they would be right. There is no point is going to war purely on principle and out of choice, regardless of the actual circumstances. You go to war because you know you're going to win and/or the alternative is eventual destruction. Neither of those apply with respect to our current situation with Iraq. One does not go to war "to defend the national honor" on spurious grounds, especially when there's no absolute guarantee of victory. Incidently, that's what the south did with the civil war, and look what happened to them.

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 6:43 PM

Just to be clear, what I was trying to say was "There is no point is going to war purely on principle and out of choice if one won't take into account the actual circumstances," not that going to war based on principle is always wrong.

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 6:51 PM

Re Mike

1. The problem with Mike is that he fails to see that the adventure in Iraq was doomed from the get go because the morons in charge, namely Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush ignored the advice of their top Army general, Shinseki, and sent in a force that was too small by at least a factor of 2. For that reason, the invasion force was unable to enforce security after the fall of the Saddam government. Now it's too late. The force size which might have led to success at the outset would probably be much too small now as the genie is out of the bottle. An adequate force size from the start might have kept the genie in the bottle and led to success. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

2. Relative to Lincoln, there is little doubt that Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election to McClellan if Sherman had not captured Atlanta. In this, he was greatly aided by the incompetence of Jefferson Davis who removed Joe Johnson from command and replaced him with the incompetent Hood (who was in no condition to command anything; he had lost an arm and part of a leg in previous battles, was in constant pain, and required large quantities of laudanum to sleep at night), who promptly launched 3 separate attacks which had the only result of weakening his forces to such an extent that they were inadequate to withstand a siege. Had Johnston remained in command, it is quite possible that his forces could have withstood a siege long enough for Lincoln to lose the election.

Posted by SLC | May 14, 2007 8:14 PM

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude:
The funny thing is that Mike is a libertarian.

LOL...Mike might "claim" he is a libertarian but he sure sounds like one of those "chaste" Bible thumpers who seem to be preoccupied with all things sexual.

Shows how carefully you read things. Every reference to "all things sexual" and their problems with western culture was in the context of what bin Laden, Islamic extremists, and even ordinary spiritual muslims across the globe fear.

You still fail to grasp that that is what they hate about us more than our military presence in the Middle East or GWB. You have not once addressed this central tenet I've mentioned multiple times now other than to say it is irrelevant. Read their missives. It is 98% of the problem they have with us.

You are so ostrich-like on this subject, you prefer to parrot MoveOn talking points instead of reading the Islamist terrorist movements own words. You think they don't mean what they say, just like the world thought about Hitler's Mein Kampf in the 1920's and 1930's.

You just can't fathom that Muslims of the world would murder and kill people who have liberal values of tolerance for gays and sluts on display, but you believe that conservatives in the U.S. would.

To further clarify since you can't seem to make a distinction between me putting forth their concerns and my own values I AM NOT ESPOUSING THIER FEARS!

You are incapable of taking yourself out of your own reality and putting yourself in someone else's. In THEIR reality gays and porn and other liberal tolerances is a bigger threat than our military. Our military is simply a tool of our culture to THEM. So is GWB. The things you get all hot and bothered about they see as merely symptoms of a disease that is western civilization.

THEY believe we are the modern day version of Sodom and Gomorahh. If you are a devout, spriritual person, as most Muslims are, rather than a secularist like most people in western civilization are, our mere existence puts fear in your heart.

But you lack empathy for the beliefs of others. You can't imagine that someone other than Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority types would wish liberals harm. You are a fool who lacks insight, clarity of perspective and your ilk will deserve the death at the hands of these ruthless foes because of your misplaced hatred and fears.

Porn Store Owner Dude:
"All those incidents happened in an almost 30 year period and still don't add up to the number of attacks I listed above that have occurred since we invaded Iraq"

I just listed attacks directly against the U.S., or in the case of Munich, a U.S. ally in an international setting. Countless more around the world in directed at other nations. And you made MY point - it's been going on for at least 30 years, and for even longer in their madrassas they've been teaching children terrorist murder of non-muslims is praiseworthy. But you'll try to spin all that, too.

Posted by Barbar:
"We get it Mike. 1. There are brown Muslims who want to kill us."

Barbar, you are a racist to write that drivel and try to imply those are the intentions and feelings of people who support going after terrorists BEFORE they kill us. Has nothing to do with racism except in your own perverted mind. Has everything to do with going to the heart of a region that has taught its people to hate and kill non-muslims for decades in mosques and madrassas.

We igonred it and did nothing about it this whole time and now are surprised that, heavens, they actually hate us and want to kill us. Duh, big red truck!

Posted by Tyro:
"Oh really? Are any politicians calling for a draft?"

We don't need a draft. We had a military two-three times larger than what we have today as recently as the 1980's to face down the Soviet threat (which I remember you liberals saying w"e couldn't win, they really weren't that bad, we were bad for opposing them, can't we all get along", etc.) without a draft, and with 80 million fewer Americans than today.

We don't need a draft, but yes, you are right, we should be reconstituting divisions by congressional authorizations, and it is troublesome they lack the will to even do that. The failure to lead and lack of courage on this issue does go to both sides of the aisle now, thanks to the relentless drumbeat to surrender voters have received from MSM, Hollywood and liberals with no WWII-style John Wayne movies or news outlets willing to portray the war in a heroic light as was done in that "popular war". That generation knew the power of mass media to steel the resolve of a people at war and showing our enemy in the poor light they deserve.

Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally were tools of the enemy. Today the enemy has found accomplices in the NYT, CBS, LAT, WP and countless leftist websites. Had Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose been based in the U.S. during WWII they'd have been shut down after their first show, for good reason.

And why have the only movies about our military in the last decade shown them in selfish, mean despicable portrayals, where soldiers don't respect their chain of command, act like they were conscripts forced into the military and kill women and children indiscriminately?

It's no wonder the public has reservations about the military and views them as ugly Americans sent abroad to do harm to innocent civilians (hollow "we support the troops but oppose the war" claims are BS and they know it).

Posted by Tyro:
"You equated liberals, and by extension the Jews who overwhelmingly broke for Kerry, with Nazis. That is really screwed up."

Wow! Now that's screwed up. Never did I equate Jews with Nazis. Your concoction there. But, since you went there, there were Judenrats in Nazi Germany. Jews who turned on their own and helped Nazis to save their own skins (quite literally). Now, I'm not saying that Jewish opponents of the war in Iraq are Judenrats.

But I wrote in an earlier post that for liberals and Jews to hate conservatives in this country and GWB more than they hate Islamic terrorists, extremists and sympathizers demonstrates an irrational lack of perspective on their part.

In no way does that statement equate or "by extension" equate Jews to Nazis, but in your warped mind, I guess you can't help but go there. Maybe it's your anti-Semitic guilt on display.

Posted by Tyro:
"Well, would the public have been right to abandon a war that they were going to lose? I think they would be right."

My original question asked if the public was right to want Lincoln to sue for peace in 1863 when it appeared as though the North was going to lose the war. Your answer was not surprisingly "yes".

Tyro, I would never want to be in a foxhole with you. I would never want you anywhere near our military (maybe our enemies). You have no business or even the slightest grasp on the notion of war.

War is not an easy business. It is not the movies where it starts, bleeds nations dry of blood and treasure and ends in two hours. Opponents don't see the error in their ways on the battlefield and abandon it.

They are fighting to prevail for what they believe in. We should be to. Unfortunately, it is starting to look like bin Laden was right in saying that their beliefs are stronger than ours and for that reason they will prevail.

Not just in Iraq or Afghanistan. But in Israel, Turkey, Malaysia, Phillipines, Indonesia, Spain, Portugal, North Africa (including the Horn), Arabia, Persia, India, and with population demographics eventually in France, Germany England and most all of Europe.

They envision a caliphate that eradicates all markers of western civilization across most of the globe. And they can count on weak sisters like you who lack belief in anything and will cry uncle to save their skin, just like the Judenrats in Nazi Germany.

The only thing you apparently think is worth fighting for is beating Republicans and Christians who never hurt you or would hurt you like Muslim extremists would. What a warped perspective you have about distinguishing real from imagined threats.

War is not fought, nor can it ever be won based on public opinion. Once a war is joined you either win or lose or achieve a stalemate until one side achieves clear superiority and finishes it. The U.S. has a clear superiority today and could finish it if you liberals got on board and remembered who the real enemy is. Instead you fear GWB more than them.

And you'll give them the time they need to achieve clear superiority they need after a stalemate you forced by being pussies today. And they will beat us. And your gay or pornstar children/grandchildren and unmarried women who have sex will be executed and all non-Muslim believers will be forced to pay monetary tribute to the Middle East or pay with their lives. Because you were too chicken today to stand up to them when you could.

While conservatives may rail against what htey consider immorality they are no where near the menace you make them out to be, and far less a menace than the people conservatives are urging you to focus your fight on.

People, get a reality check about the threat you face. It is not from politicians here. It is from the people GWB and our military volunteer to fight. Your tears for our brave fallen men and women are nothing more than crocodile tears.

You don't care that they want to win and know the importance of winning in Iraq. You don't care that they willingly risk their lives because they believe in the cause. You simply want to bemoan their loss and tragically undercut the very purpose they risked it for. You're not doing them any favors by bringing them home today.

If you succeed you will cause them to cry when civilians are again asked to give their lives to protect soldiers. They join the military and our military exists for to do the opposite. Let them do it, and truly support them by supporting their cause and demonstrating to the world, friend and foe alike, that America has resolve and will defeat any enemy, any where, any time.

Strength, unity and resolve defeats all enemies. The lack of unity your side shows the world about America only encourages more attacks and a subsequent American defeat. A good number of Americans still get it. And a good number of Americans can be brought back into the fold with the right leadership that is determined to do all that is necessary to win, including reengaging the public about why we must.

To those who will always reject this argument: you were wrong about the Soviet Union and numerous other foes. Had Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Obama or Hillary been president during the 1980's rather than Reagan there still would be a USSR, Soviet Bloc, proxy wars around the globe and all the atrocities continuing to be committed that they were responsible for.

Just because it's tough and looks bleak doesn't mean you quit. Winners don't quit. America is for winners, not losers. You owe future generations a home and a world better than you were given by the sacrifices of those who preceeded us.

Unless, of course, you're a typical self-centered liberal who "got theirs" and could care less about anyone else trying to climb the ladder of success and enjoy the freedoms we currently offer.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 8:48 PM

SLC: So would public opinion have been right to oust Lincoln and sue for peace with the South?

As a southerner who was raised on "the south's gonna do it again", that sounds inspiring on one hand.

On the other hand ther would not have been a U.S. to help win WWI and WWII. Slavery might have continued for another century dooming countless souls to that depravity. North America may have evolved into as many nations as Europe, with the requisite wars that accompany those lines.

No, following public opinion would have resulted in a disastrous outcome from the 20/20 hindsight we have today. No war can be fought based on public opinion. Should we lose in Iraq because we followed public opinion the future of the U.S. and the world would be equally as bleak and perilous as it would have been if the North quit the Civil War in 1863. Perspective, people, that's all I ask!

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 8:55 PM

The unhinged paranoid hilarity of Mike's posts speaks for itself. Who, on earth, could parody the right-wingers when they themselves come up with stuff like:

And your gay or pornstar children/grandchildren and unmarried women who have sex will be executed and all non-Muslim believers will be forced to pay monetary tribute to the Middle East or pay with their lives. Because you were too chicken today to stand up to them when you could.

Pure genius. :) All you left out was the corruption of the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids. A couple things though:

Never did I equate Jews with Nazis.

Uh, yeah, yah did. Remember this?

liberals today are about as anti-jewish as 1930's Germans were

Jewish voters in America don't just support liberals. They are liberals. You're saying that Jewish voters are anti-semitic pro-Nazis. You're crazy.

Just because it's tough and looks bleak doesn't mean you quit. Winners don't quit. America is for winners, not losers.

Learn about the fallacy of sunken costs. Libertarians particularly (especially the Randian sort) are enamored of the idea of a heroic life in which one tries daring things, invoking TR about how it is better to face failure than to never have dared to do anything. Well, you got your wish. YOu dared to do something. It wasn't rolling the dice on a startup company, of course, it was taking a dare with the lives of thousands of our troops, but that's neither here nor there. And you failed. You blew it. You placed a big bet with your chips, and it didn't pay off. It happens. You know what you do? You cut your losses and move on, ready to fight again another day. You don't keep going "double or nothing, double or nothing" day after day with other people's lives. War isn't a game. You do it because there's no other option, not because you think it might be a neat idea to try.

Posted by Tyro | May 14, 2007 9:34 PM

Tyro:

You truly lack anything that resembles a functional brain.

To say liberals today are about as anti-Jewish as 1930's Germans today equates Jews to Nazi's is absurd. If I had written that "Jews in the 1930's are as anti-Jewish as the Nazi's" or "Jews today are as anti-Jewish as Germans in the 1930's" that would have been one thing. But, I did't right that, now did I? You make a huge leap in proclaiming Jews as singularly liberal.

You probably got a 200 on your verbal portion of the SAT where they ask "All Fords are cars. Are all cars Fords? You probably answered "Yes". What an dum-dum you are, pretending to be educated, though by putting down others you disagree with - typical liberal strategy which I've chosen to employ with you.

Once again, you liberals are famous for lacking the gravitas to understand the presentation of a perspective you disagree with. My remarks were always posited as a representation of the desires of our enemies, you know those Muslim true believers who hate and fear the seductiveness of liberal western culture. The ones who cut off people's head in snuff videos. The ones you should be more worried about than GWB or "neocons".

Sunken costs. Double down. War is no game, sir/ma'am, and not rolling the dice on a startup company.

You seem surprised that Jihadists didn't just quit when we went into Iraq. "Oh my, they shoot back and are willing to dig in and fight. We made a mistake."

Once again, I would never want to be in a foxhole with you - you're a chickenshit. You don't understand the nature and art of war. To win it is necessarily brutal, so that one side loses its nerve. bin Laden proclaimed we are a paper tiger, and we have no nerve. You are Exhibit A.

You're crocodile tears over thousands of troop's lives lost don't sell. You've never seen the inside of a platoon or squadron. OUR TROOPS SUPPORT THIS WAR! YOU WANT TO TELL THEM TO SURRENDER BECAUSE "YOU CARE ABOUT THEM AND SUPPORT THEM?"

Since you obviously didn't read the earlier post in its entirety THEY HAVE ALL ENLISTED OR RE-UPPED SINCE 9/11 WHEN THEY KNEW THEY'D BE PUT IN HARM'S WAY. 90% HAVE DONE SO SINCE WE WENT INTO IRAQ.

If they didn't support what they were doing they wouldn't be there. We do not have a conscript military like we did in Vietnam.

Our troops want to win, not surrender. They know that they stand between us and a murderous, ruthless foe. They don't appreciate civilian handcuffs like applying the Geneva convention to combatants not in uniform. They don't appreciate being told they will have to surrender because a bunch of chickenshit liberals like you told them you care about them.

And you have the nerve to lecture a veteran that war isn't a game, when you have zero understanding of it other than to detest it, as in "nothing is worth fighting and dying for (except getting rid of GWB, multi-national corporations and Jews)".

You pampered, self-centered, egotistical fool!

You prefer civilians being used as human shields for our military. You'd rather have secretaries jump 110 floors to their death after grabbing a cup of coffee at their desk than lose one more life in Iraq, or anywhere our enemies may lurk. You are a suicidal nut job who would have all of us not in uniform today get killed with you because you lack the will to defend your believes from foreign foes.

The only fight and greatest threat you fear is with GWB and Republicans. What an isolated pampered world you live in.

Don't you realize that the "another day" you wish to be ready to fight for will be against a stronger, better armed, more emboldened enemy and will cost countless more lives?

But, since you went with the gambling analogy, we have a full house now in the Middle East. Iran is caught between us being staged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria is between us in Iraq and with Israel. They have two pair. You want us to fold this hand and hope to draw a royal flush next time?

Got news for you - no royal flush next time for us - if we quit now we'll be lucky to get a high pair. Their two pair will be discarded for a straight flush. That's the hand you want us to live to fight another day for compared to what we have now?

The ONLY area we are weaker than them is in our resolve. Because of the dominance of your voice in a liberal media and neither of you want us to win.

And don't say you want us to win. When did you EVER show support for this endeavor and wish the troops good luck in achieving victory? When did any liberal leader do so?

I've acknowledged (for probably the 4th time in this blog chat) that this president severely mismanaged this war. It doesn't mean it was wrong. It doesn't mean we quit.

Only to liberals like you who NEVER WANTED US TO WIN in Iraq is losing an acceptable outcome. You never offered to be part of the solution. The decision was made 97-1, both parties to go in. But the left decided that was as far as they would go. They would never go on to declare that it was the nation's intent, the will of the people they represent to prevail, to win.

Democrats voted to send troops into harms way along with Republicans. Former President Clinton said "regime change is the U.S. policy towards Iraq". Liberals have since adopted that phrase to make GWB a greater threat than Michael Moore's "Iraqi kids flying kites, life is great here under our beloved Saddam" depiction. Sick.

But Democrats and liberals never got that to win a war a nation must unite and demonstrate unbreakable will and resolve to its foes. Politics stopped at the water's edge during wartime in all previous conflicts, save for Vietnam.

And that was a disaster because you spoiled, self-righteous, hug your enemy, make love not war types prevailed. As your final encore before you go the way of the dinosaurs you want to make sure America loses another one.

I'll be happy as all get out when, with the exception of my parents and friends, that generation finally dies off - the most self-destructive, self-infatuated, self-obsessed generation probably in the history of mankind, since the Romans banned the military from Rome and they were sacked after they had become too sophisticated and too content in their comfortable, peaceful lives to recognize the need for military defense.

Your idealism of a peaceful world is nice and needed - we should always strive for it. But when idealism ignores the reality of the day only the idealists and those who followed them end up dead. I don't intend to be one of a body count you're fanciful notions led to.

Posted by Mike | May 14, 2007 10:29 PM

why does this mike person consider Chavez to be his enemy? is it because he speaks ill of dear leader?
If so, that means I am also Mike's enemy for some reason.
You don't want to be part of a body count, mike?
Is that why you're not in the military?

Posted by merlallen | May 15, 2007 3:47 AM

Mike, unfortunately you're not making arguments for why we should be in Iraq, you're explaining why you need to upgrade your diapers.

Posted by Barbar | May 15, 2007 5:59 AM

One wonders if Mike ever considers going to war ill-advised. One also has to wonder what he would do if the United States found itself in a war of choice that it couldn't win. Or is his every reaction to every war, "America is for winners! We're gonna win! Woohoo!" ?

Posted by Tyro | May 15, 2007 8:03 AM

Matt should have merged this post with the one a few items above and called the combined post "Bagel-Bloomberg?"

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 4:10 PM

Merlallen: Why consider Chavez the Enemy? You support him?

He is an enemy of the people of Venezuela and those of us who know that capitalism is THE system that has enabled the massive improvement in the quality of life for all human beings on the planet, including the U.S. Chavez is a militant, confiscatory, dictatorial egomaniac socialist/communist.

He has abolished the Venezuelan constitution, virtually eliminated the term limits it provided for (something an earlier liberal poster claimed GWB was doing in America, but I guess it's okay for you if a socialist/communist who shares your values does it).

He seized the assets of companies that poured billions of dollars in investment into Venezuela at gunpoint so that he and his socialist/communist cronies can live off the cream they take as they destroy their economic viability, much as his hero and enemy of America Castro did to his island nation.

He menaces his neighbors by sparking anti-American (not just anti-GWB) resentment for imagined grievances we perpetrated on them, and has tried to influence the outcome of elections across Central and South America to help candidates who will join him in destroying our alliances with them. He even funded and aided the loser of the Mexican election to bring anarchy to the streets in an attempt to force a coup d'etat to overthrow the fairly elected winner.

But, you like him more than GWB, because you think these are GOOD things. So, yes, he is an enemy of America, as is Castro. But you lefties know that and support that because you hate capitalism, though you suck off the tit of it every day you live and breathe in this nation. Ignoramous enemies of this nation, yes YOU are!

Barber:

You are a racist. You support Islamic militants who would kill you for your penchant to inhale another man's genitals. I don't care what you like to do, nor does GWB. Islamic militants do, though. They love the "useful idiots" like you, as Stalin called liberals in America in the 1950's. But, since they hate GWB and you hate GWB you think their A-Okay. Go do your thing in Iran and meet with their justice, hmmm.

Tyro:

Yes, aside from not going to war with friends or neutral countries war is ill-advised against an enemy who has more might than you (nope, Islamic terrorists don't have that on us YET). And war is ill-advised against an enemy who values self-preservation, as they will be open to dialogue (nope, Islamic terrorists look forward to meeting Allah much sooner than we look forward to meeting God). And, war is ill-advised against hostile nations who have done you no harm and do not threaten your national interests (nope, Saddam attempted to assassinate a U.S. president, harbored the snuff-film, neck-sawing murderor al-Zarqawi, who fled Afghanistan after we took out the Taliban, and BEFORE we went into Iraq. He also harbored the terrorist responsible for murdering a wheelchair-bound American by pushing him into the ocean from a cruise ship. He also trained terrorists and members of al-Qaida in desert camps in a lose alliance against the U.S. - yes, I know, no direct link was found between Saddam and 9/11, but numerous links WERE in fact verified between him and other bad actors in league with bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the U.S.)

Iraq was shooting deadly A-A missles at U.S. Air Force patrols breaking the terms of the 1991 cease-fire from a war he was being destroyed by to save his hide. He broke the agreement on numerous occassions, but your pillar of national defense and strength, Clinton, ignored it without penalty.

Iraq was a just war, a good war, a legal war and the removal of Saddam was a good thing for the world. Planning for and maintaining the peace and establishing order have been the collossal failure of GWB's administration. Not the justification for it. Now that al-Qaida has made it the central front in their war we must defeat them and we must elect a president in 2008 with the spine and leadership ability to win it.

Posted by Mike | May 15, 2007 7:03 PM

Tyro:

Oh yeah, you also forget or don't care about the fact that Saddam was paying families of Palestinian suicide murderers $25,000 for the terrorist slaughters of Israeli and foreign civilians in our ally Israel's streets. Allies are allies because they stand up with each other when threatened by mutual foes.

Israel did the world a favor in 1981 by taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities he would have developed the bomb with and had to prop up his regime of horrors, like Iran threatens to today.

But you anti-semitic racists don't care if more "dirty jews" get murdered, as if 6 million weren't enough for your blood lust. Nope, Saddam's Iraq was Michael Moore's little slice of heaven on earth in your perverted minds.

Posted by Mike | May 15, 2007 7:14 PM

You could almost forget that American Jews have always been more opposed to the war in Iraq than the electorate at large, dating back to the pre-war days. I guess they're all just anti-semitic racist Jews, not caring if more "dirty jews" get murdered.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 7:28 PM

Steve:

American Jews are an interesting people. The majority fear hostilities that might be directed at them for "provoking" enemies. Jewish people tend to be very communal, with kibutz living and "social justice" values in full force in Israel. For that reason they identify with our communal party, the Democrats, and vote accordingly.

But, more and more are waking up to the threat that Democrats are who embrace and kiss terrorists (Hillary Clinton in the White House Rose Garden in 1999 with Arafat), and the friends that Republicans are (Rudy Giuliani kicking Arafat out of a NYC concert in 1998).

For that reason, American Jews give Hillary support of only 53% versus Rudy, far lower than typical Democratic Jewish support.

American Jews just don't like conflict, period. You don't see mass movements against Mel Gibson or Don Imus by American Jews after they rant anti-semitism. Maybe some remarks of disappointment, ask for an apology, then done. Contrast that with American blacks who are offended.

By and large they are pacifists and disconnected from the struggles of Jews in Israel and not living with suicide murderers on the streets daily, as was the case in Israel when Saddam was paying blood money.

And, yes, there are the self-hating Jews. Witness the Jewish Rabbi Holocaust denier who went to Iran for their conference of deniers. That Rabbi and his followers and other less passionate but sympathetic Jews are anti-semitic who clearly don't care that "dirty jews" were murderd by Hitler.

Lastly, there were Judenrats in Nazi Germany. Jews who helped round up other Jews to be exterminated, as long as it kept them alive. This should be shocking, but is not.

Posted by Mike | May 15, 2007 8:04 PM

I would vote for Bloomberg in a 2 seconds and try and convince everyone I know to do the same. Republicans are view as corrupt good ol boys (thanks bush!). And starting when the Dem's have taken over the biggest news makers for them are Hilary and AL Sharpton (yuck). We are sick of party politics, corruption, incompetence and that's that.

Posted by nhw | May 21, 2007 5:14 AM