Even if you accept all the "Bush Lied" crapola it is still an unalterable fact that we are in Iraq and, whether we recognize a duty to continue our efforts or not, our hard national interests are tied up in that country's success and survival. Really, all the Dem candidates except D Kookinich knew this to be a fact of international life. One may recall that during the first or so Dem debate NOT ONE of the three leaders would promise to withdraw IN THEIR FIRST TERM. For those mathematically challenged, that would have been a vow of five more years of war... MINIMUM. Well, Barry is now backtracking to a 16 month plan. How this squares with the "Peace NOW!" crowd I can't imagine but can anyone doubt that Barry retains to himself the right to erase that promise for tactical or political reasons? I hope not and the late Samantha Powers thinks not. He would be unfit for that reason alone.

But BHO would not have any of the problems yo mention, since he would invite all the involved Heads of State and their military advisers to join in a video conference at which his charisma would mesmerise them into stopping the violence, current or future. Oh, and Saudi Arabia would offer to desalinate the Dead Sea at its own expense.

But BHO would not have any of the problems yo mention, since he would invite all the involved Heads of State and their military advisers to join in a video conference at which his charisma would mesmerise them into stopping the violence, current or future.Oh, and Saudi Arabia would offer to desalinate the Dead Sea at its own expense.

I thought you were channeling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad until I read the last sentence.

Please, don't blame the “Liberal bloggers and journalists” for Bush’s failures.

His neocon war with Iraq has been a total disaster because of his ineptness.

He is hated by most Americans because he is bankrupting our economy and destroying the ability of our military to respond to future problems.

I always love to see and hear people, particularly the leftys out there berate belittle and harp about "Bush's failures"...

Case in point: My own father when I was home recovering started telling me about "...the war Bush, Cheney, all their oil cronies and how his oil companies and such were all plotting and planning this war and others to further enrich themselves and how evil they all were..." at least thats what I got from it as Dad was frothing slightly and somewhat less than articulate than usual. He then went off on a tangent on how stupid Bush et al were...

I'm by no means a Bush supporter despite my profiting on this war, but I had to ask: "Dad you're essentially saying that Bush and Company are evil stupid men right?"

He answered "Yep... thats just what I'm saying."

Then I asked: "Dad, you are also saying that Bush and all his buddies plotted this VAST and HUGE conspiricy to go to war over oil and get rich in the process."

He answered (not quite as sure now): "Uh Yes... they planned it."

I then pointed out that he's either one or the other: Either dumber than Jethro Bodine or a Mad Evil Genius... at which point I also said that if he's both, then we need to call in Austin Powers to take care of him, b/c it's obvious that Dr. Evil has taken over the White House in disguise.

My Moms laughter drowned out whatever weak response he might have made.

la la la la

When one nation invades another in order to replace its system of brutal repression with democracy, terrible things can result if the first nation gives up before the second is fully reconstructed: reprisals, terrorism, and the evils of the past.

Any Confederate should know that in his bones.

The Weekly Standard is reporting that one of their sources in the Iraqi Foreign Office is telling them that Obama's people have been talking to him (the Iraqi guy) and telling him that Obama's talk of retreat is pure politics and that Obama has no intention of pulling out troops. Make of that what you will.

Grey Fox, I'd say that's plausible, and not just cause Obama's campaign has been caught doing similar things before (remember Canada and NAFTA)?

Simply put, both Obama and Hillary know that if they are elected, and shut down the war, the Party of the Donkey will likely get the blame for the ensuing chaos, and the leftymedia can't keep that story from getting to the public, thanks to Fox News, talk radio, and blogs like this one right here. That's why out of all the "pull the troops out now" bills floating around Congress since the Dems became the majority party, not a single one has passed, if memory serves (I could be wrong). The Dems don't want the blame for things going wrong. They're the MAJORITY party, they could pass them if they REALLY wanted to.

Therefore, they say they'll pull troops out now because of political expediency. But they'll keep them there if they're elected out of that same political expediency.

Well, were gonna have to pull out eventually so might as well start, like, drawing up a plan? (something that this administration seems definitely adverse to) And they all, you know, have to continue living there so why not get all concerned parties (Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Iranians and of course, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia) to sit down together and work out a plan. Of course, Princess Sparkle Pony™, Secretary Rice is doing nothing on that front as usual. And Bush? He's so against any kind of peace settlement in the area that Olmert of Israel is going behind his back, sending secret notes to Assad of Syria, having to use the Prime Minister of Turkey as a go between. Just sayin'.

What mess might that be?

Polio vaccinations? Increased pay for teachers and civil servants? International law training for judges? New fire engines? Lifting the ban on satellite dishes and access to foreign news? Environmental recovery of the wetlands? New schools?

Recovery of bodies from Saddam's mass graves and proper burials via the families religious traditions with no interference from the government? Accounting for MIAs from the Iraq - Iran war and the Iraq - Kuwait war for grieving families? Justice for the Kurds? Justice for the victims of the Anwar uprising reprisals?

If I could take credit for a mess like that, I'd consider my life well lived.

Tonto, just how high in the Pentagon are you, to be so certain that there isn't already a plan--or several plans, for differing withdrawal situations--in some General's desk drawer?

Just because you haven't seen it on CNN doesn't mean that there isn't a plan yet.

And, honestly, your assumption that if it ain't on the news it doesn't exist is revealing, but hardly shocking.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Tonto, just how high in the Pentagon are you, to be so certain that there isn't already a plan--or several plans, for differing withdrawal situations--in some General's desk drawer?

I don't work at the Pentagon C-C-G....I work at the State Department. My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here (the ones that were drawn up during Powell's tenure) Funny that you mention the Pentagon though. I've been sending 'cease and desist' memos over to Sec. Gates office for months now. Frankly, I'm so frigging sick and tired of all these 'discredited' generals coming over here and bringing me all the plans from their desk drawers for storage! I'm choking on dust as it is! (I'm gonna have to start wearing a friggin' hazmat suit soon!)

and if Gen. Shinseki comes over here one more time I swear I gonna get a frigging restraining order against him!

Tontocal said: "I work at the State Department. My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here (the ones that were drawn up during Powell's tenure)"

If you get some extra time, please see if you can find Powell's exit strategy for Iraq...I'm sure it's there somewhere.

Interesting, Tontocal. Does this mean you are also a 'source' of leakage of classified information? Does this mean that whenever the MSM 'discovers' there is a 'plan' to attack County X...you are a potential source?

Wonder if the Justice Department would be interested in your discussion of your job here.

I am, of course, taking you at your word...

Hmmm... wasn't April Glaspie also employed by State?

If the name is unfamiliar to you, Google it.

Does this mean you are also a 'source' of leakage of classified information? Does this mean that whenever the MSM 'discovers' there is a 'plan' to attack County X...you are a potential source?

Wonder if the Justice Department would be interested in your discussion of your job here.

I am, of course, taking you at your word...

Um......duh?

and hey Mark:

When you say 'leaking classified information', do you mean like exposing the identity of a NOC intelligence operative for partisan purposes? You mean that kind?

C-C-G:

I take it you're referring to former US Envoy to Baghdad, 'April Glaspie'? (under GHWB) I'm not sure why you'd mention her? What? She wasn't acting under the direction of the White House at the time?

Actually, CCG, I believe tontocal is referring to a certain Valerie Plame. The facts of that case however are moot. She was out of undercover work for more than five years and hence not a 'covert agent'. Case closed. Plus, if memory serves, it was Richard Armitage who was the actual source of the leak...and he received no punishment.

In response to your first reply to me. I now call Bravo Sierra on your claim to be a State Dept employee. If I'm wrong, of course, there will be no harm done after the Justice Department gets through its investigation.

Enjoy.

Tonto, you may not be aware of this, but Mark is actually a real government employee. I've verified this with his work email address. If he prods someone into investigating your claims here... well...

And as for the insinuation that Glaspie made her idiotic statements at the behest of Bush 41, that just shows how far gone into conspiracy theories are. Next you'll say that all the anti-Dubya leaks that have come from State were at his direction.

Keep an eye out for black helicopters, dude.

DrKrbyLuv said,

"He is hated by most Americans because he is bankrupting our economy and destroying the ability of our military to respond to future problems."

Excrement. Pure human waste.

Most Americans like Bush. He is a friendly, personable man who makes reasoned decisions. We elected him twice. Many oppose his policies in Iraq, disagree with his Christianity, do not support his position on social issues. Others are dissatisfied with his spending and expansion of government.

The opposition on the Iraq War ranges from pacifists who oppose any use of military force to those who believe we did not act aggressively enough. In 2004, two years after the war began, Bush won handily.

Our economy has grown every quarter since November 2001. In 2002 the economy grew at 2.2%. In 2003, 2.5% and from 2003 to 2007, by 2.8%, 3.6%, 3.1%, 2.9% and 2.5%. Housing decline has adversely affected growth by about 1% beginning in 2007. GDP growth has slowed to about 0.7% in year 2008, but as of April, new housing starts have increased 8.2% (their largest increase in 2 years).

On the revenue side, Bush tax cuts have reduced budget deficit as a % of GDP from 3.6% in 2004 to 1.9% in 2006 and 1.2% in 2007. Once again, the economy has proven that reducing marginal tax rates has created jobs and thereby increased government revenue. Unfortunately, Pelosi and her allies want to reverse this trend by sun setting these cuts. [read: increasing taxes.] If the US economy slides into recession, it should be named "Pelosi's Recession."

About the military. The Left said we would not prevail in Afghanistan. They were wrong. We rolled up the Taliban with a few thousand special forces and an air campaign. They also said we would fail in Iraq. Again they were wrong. We conquered the entire country (about the size of California) with 150,000 troops in six weeks and only lost 150 killed. After we had taken the place, the coalition provision authority, in my view, bungled the peace. Fortunately, Petraeus' counterinsurgency tactics have destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq, crushed the Mahdi army and enabled the Maliki government to proceed with uniting Iraqis behind the central government.

If you think our military cannot respond to future threats, you should ask why the Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans and other anti-American states are so careful not to attack us directly or threaten our interests. Bush wields a very big stick and has shown that we will, if necessary, use it. I know of no potential problem to which our military cannot respond.

Before posting a comment, get your facts straight.

C-C-G:

And as for the insinuation that Glaspie made her idiotic statements at the behest of Bush 41, that just shows how far gone into conspiracy theories are.

I'm certainly no 'conspiracy theorist', (I tend, as a refex, to reject them out of hand; ie., Bush orchestrated 9/11) While I gave only a cursory glance to her record, please enlighten me. Did Sec. Baker deny any involvement? Was she a 'rogue' envoy?

To Mark and C-C-G:

My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here

Umm...just so Mark doesn't go all forensic on the .gov employee databases.....it's called satire?

Oh...and Mark...about the claims that Plame's 'covert' status were all bogus, the following statement, cleared by CIA Director Hayden, was released on March 16, 2007 during congressional testimony:

"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA."

Was Dir. Hayden lying?

Oh...and just so you know? I've read the 'snarky' comments about the 'MSM' and CNN. Now, there is almost nothing that I would agree with Rush Limbaugh on but one thing I do? I believe he coined the phrase, "drive by media". When I first ever hear him utter that phrase, I nodded my head and said, "ah say amen!" It's something that both us on the left and you on the right seem to agree upon. While my views on many things are certainly very much on the 'left', if you'd like to dismiss me as some closed-minded liberal idealogue, think again.

Wonderful, tontocal. I accept your evidence of Plame's classification as testified by the Director. I will have to review the specific statute to see if my memory is correct about the requirements for a crime to have been committed by ‘outing’ said ‘covert agent’. Presuming there are no specifics within the statute, how do you explain why Mr. Armitage was given immunity when he was the source of Novak's story (according to Mr. Novak himself)? Scooter Libby was not convicted of the crime (if it exists) associated with the outing of this 'covert agent'.

Personally, I don't give a damn if you are or are not an employee of the State Department. I do have a BIG issue with you discussing potentially classified information in a public forum. Whatever your opinions are on certain generals or Secretary Rice does not matter one bit to me. I'm sure, continuing the assumption you are an SD employee, your ultimate boss - Secy Rice - would be rather interested…the generals, likewise.

As for 'forensics' on gov databases, I'll leave that to the DOJ who have all of the information they need to investigate if they so desire as of approximately 2:30AM MDT today.

Satire? Now, are you suggesting you may have lied about your employment? Interesting, again.

I’m glad you agree with Mr. Limbaugh on something. There may be hope for you yet. Of course, I don’t agree with anyone 100%, Rush included.

My personal politics/philosophy are conservative and my party affiliation is Independent. I enjoy entertaining ideas/thoughts/debate from diverse individuals ranging the entire spectrum. Providing they do so honestly.

Mark,

In case I wasn't quite clear enough (what with my snark) no, I am not nor have I ever been an employee of the State Dept. As far as anything discussed here, I'm sure you would agree that it's all a matter of public record. (and if I was a DOS employee, I certainly wouldn't be stupid (or criminal enough) to discuss classified information on some 2-bit blog) If you want to pass anything on to the DOJ that you seem pertinent, feel free; be a bit of a waste of DOJ and DOS resources (as if there isn't enough waste in govenment as it is)

No, I'm just a regular 'joe shmoe' who just happens to pay attention to the issues. (oh, and you can check the statute concerning Plame; I think the relevant statute is under the "Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, though I'm mobile at the moment so I can't link it for you. I was surprised you didn't know about Hayden's confirmation. As to why there has been no one prosecuted for violating a federal statute, I imagine only Scooter Libby knows for sure)

And if you honestly believe that I was 'lying', considering how silly my previous post in question reads, you need to 'loosen up' abut Mark...(I'd thought from my first "um duh?" response that you realized It was a joke.

Ahh, now we have Tonto admitting he lied. Of course, he is also spinning furiously, so as not to be branded a liar.

Good luck with that, liar.

As a suggestion in the future, utilize a "/sarc" tag at the end of any "satiricle" or sarcastic post you make in the future. I tend to be one who "takes people at their word" and if you do not place that tag on your posts OR explain it sufficiently in your very next post then you lose credibility in my eyes.

No, tontocal, you 'misrepresented yourself'. And in typical Liberal manner you are now attempting to deflect the real issue I had with you. I state had in past tense for a very basic reason.

You LIED. I am now done with you.

Good day, Sir.

(now waiting breathlessly--well, not really--for Tonto to pull out the "Bush lied, too" excuse for his own lies.)

That Hayden testimony that Tonto mentions and the use of the word "covert," I believe was covert for the purposes of the CIA as opposed to the IIPA. Waxman tried the same BS during his hearings, claiming he had definitive word from the CIA, but when pushed he relented and agreed he only had the CIA's operating definition of covert as opposed to the legal definition under the IIPA. Waxman promised to get back to his committee with a formal response, but none has been forthcoming. Fitzgerald tapdanced around the definitions during the Libby trial and in my recollection never produced an answer from anyone in authority which cited Plame as being covert under the terms of the IIPA. Check the transcript.

Ahh, now we have Tonto admitting he lied. Of course, he is also spinning furiously, so as not to be branded a liar.

Good luck with that, liar.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 06:03 PM

You LIED. I am now done with you.

Good day, Sir.

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2008 06:13 PM

Well, I must admit, I'm finding this all pretty amusing. Again, I assumed from the tone of the first email that y'all would have realized that I was like, kidding?. That said, if I'd known what the 'rules' were (gawd, you righties are such sticklers for rules) in the interests of clarity, I certainly would have used the "/sarc" tag that Mark mentioned. I certainly didn't expect you guys to be calling for your 'smelling salts'' for goodness sakes. (and for the record, I am an guy...I conduct myself on the 'internets' as I would anywhere else...my real name is 'Patrick' by the way...and I'll take the 'offhand' comparison to Bush as a compliment, coming from you guys)

To: 'daleyrocks':

There is a pertinent statute that I remember reading through (though I can't quite remember if it's in the IIPA)....I'll find it and post it tomorrow.

er.....I mean't, "...tone of the first posting"

In response to Arch’s post dated May 16, 2008 10:28 AM:

“Most Americans like Bush. He is a friendly, personable man who makes reasoned decisions.”

This is fantasy. Bush is polling with disapproval ratings as high as 70%. He is the most hated President since Jimmy Carter (hard to believe anyone could be hated that much).

You are out of touch. Fortunately, GOP candidates are not as naive as you and they are running as far away as possible from Bush. Wake-up!

oh.....and in my haste, I left out 'honest' as in "I'm a honest guy". Feel free to exorciate over that one as well.

Hey, Krby... take a gander at the approval ratings for your beloved MoveOn-Democrat-led Congress. They're even lower than Dubya's.

Kinda throws a big titanium-plated monkey wrench in your theory, doesn't it?

hey there Yankee. I think you misunderstand Progressives, Anarchists and a great many Libertarians. Nobody "hates" Bush. He really has never risen to that level. But it's probably true that most of us loathe and despise his behaviors, arrogance, and unearned pretense to the respect of adults. You want to see Bush hate, talk to an Iraqi who has seen a million of his people killed because this grinning simpleton thought he could get away with it all quickly and cleanly and be forever applauded at home.

Concerning Valerie Plame's status under IIPA:

Section 606, subsection 4:

(4) The term "covert agent" means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

You can read the entire thing:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

Tontocal - I didn't need the citation. What I want to see is an authoritative source claiming Plame was covert under that section. That source would not include pundits, Fitzgerald, Waxman, etc. The Hayden citations I've seen made no reference to the statute. Let's see what you've got! Do you have an actual government legal source making the claim or not?

That particular section of the statute defines what constitutes a 'covert agent'. General Hayden has confirmed that Plame indeed was a 'covert' agent. IIPA SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) states that it is a crime to knowingly 'out' a covert agent (high threshold that).

I imagine that's why Fitzgerald was only able to culminate the investigation with the Libby prosecution (so YAYS for Libby) I haven't yet been able to find a citation from the committee hearings of that particular statute violation (perhaps I won't) but it does mention:

"Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited fiom disclosure under Executive Order 12958. "

(yes, weak but....oh, sorry....forgot that I'm not supposed to quote anything from that lying, liar Waxman)

Perhaps, in the future, there might also be further indictments issued for violating:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

I'm curious though. Are you maintaining that by outing a covert agent, a crime wasn't committed though? (and by inference that when a Democratic administration is next in power, that it'll be okay to out an agent who clashes with them politically?)

Tontocal - You keep finessing the issue as does everyone else:

"General Hayden has confirmed that Plame indeed was a 'covert' agent."

He did not say she was covert under section 606 of the IIPA did he? Have you found any authoritative government source willing to make that representation?

I am making no forward looking statements about future administrations, merely pointing out that people use the word "covert" in connection with Plame very casually and not in connection with the legal statute in which liability was intended.

If you find something that indicates she was covert under the IIPA, again, from somebody in a position to make an accurate representation, not a pundit, I would love to see it.

Are you maintaining that she wasn't a covert agent because that particular statute in the IIPA wasn't cited?

oh daley....I did find this (from the 'sentencing guidelines' in the Libby trial)....it states on pages 4 and 5 that she was indeed a covert agent as defined in the IIPA statute:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/sentencing_memo.pdf

tontocal - You're still milking it! Read footnote 3 on page 5 of the document you refer to in your prior comment. It acknowledges the proof of her covert status under the IIPA is not a part of the court proceedings.

Classified is different than covert.

A covert employee of the CIA is different than a covert agent for the purposes of the IIPA.

I think some of this may finally be sinking in with you. Keep paying careful attention to how something is said and who is saying it. The sentencing brief you link was prepared by Fitzgerald, so of course he is going to make as strong a case as he can that she is covert, but parse his words carefully.