Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wasn't trying to paint a rosy picture. It's just seems that there is a consensus starting to build that there has been real progress over the last few months. Even the DEM candidates are starting to hedge/re-message on Iraq.

There seems to have been tactical gains, but there's no apparent strategic progress. If the progress of the war were measured by casualties, you'd think things go a lot worse on D-Day instead of better.

And the Democratic candidates are a terrible bellwether of what's happening.

[Diane_Keaton]

....right?

http://steelturman.typepad.com/photo...l_cleavage.jpg

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
....right?

http://steelturman.typepad.com/photo...l_cleavage.jpg

Penske?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Understood, but the devil you know is always preferable when dealing with a nation full of idiot fundamentalists and nuclear bombs. He really has no choice here but to get behind Musharraf.

And every Democrat should be damn glad he did. If Musharraf fell and some pack of religious buffoons were to somehow get the reins of that nation, protecting us from Pakistan and its nukes would be the battle cry Rudy rode into the White House by the biggest margin in recent electoral memory.

Be happy Bush is keeping the status quo. The Democratic Party is always one globally destabilizing and frightening incident from irrelevance. As long as Iraq and the economy remain the main issues, however, it has a pretty rosy future.

Neither Butro nor the fasting cricket captain seem particularly like religious baffoons.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
the devil you know is always preferable when dealing with a nation full of idiot fundamentalists and nuclear bombs.

True. I hear the Europeans are hoping for a Republican victory.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Neither Butro nor the fasting cricket captain seem particularly like religious baffoons.

She's steeped in fanatical Islamicism, and she and her family are so corrupt, they are basically the reason why Pakistan usually ties with Nigeria for "most corrupt country in the word". Even good ole neutral Switzerland went after her to have her indicted for corruption (the results of which naturally landed in Swiss banks). On her Islamicist connections, look at her appointment of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence - General Hamid Gul. Yes, the U.S. worked with him during the Soviet/Afghan occupation but no doubt about it, her appointment has shown his true colors and is not only fanatically Muslim but the kind that wears a tin foil hat under his round cap. He PeterThottam-like blamed the jews for 9/11 (on 9/11 mind you) and then said the U.S. was in on it. He also urges Muslims everywhere in the world to object to the American war against terror b/c he thinks it's a war against Muslims. Quote: "Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped." Lovely.

Bhutto is so much more corrupt than Musharaf and now she's probably going to run along with Sharif, a/k/a the one who made Pakistan a nuke nation. It will be all about money again and she'll let any fundamentalist group do what it wants as long she continues siphoning massive amounts of money. What a mess. There is a reason I've had Musharraf on my Celebrity Death Pool list for 3 years straight.

[SlaveNoMore]

This means nothing - perhaps even less than nothing because it's Zogby - but her "inevitable win", according to you, is looking ever less so, primarily because of the kooks on the far-Left:

Democrat Hillary Clinton would lose to all major Republican White House candidates, according to a hypothetical election matchup poll Monday, reversing her months of dominance over potential 2008 challengers.

The Zogby International poll was the latest sign that withering attacks on the former first lady were chipping away at her opinion poll leads just 38 days before the Iowa caucuses, the first party nominating contests.

In the new survey, Clinton trailed Senator John McCain 42 percent to 38 percent, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 43 percent to 40 percent and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 43 percent to 40 percent.

She also lagged behind former Arkansas Republican governor Mike Huckabee by 44 to 39 percent, and former Senator Fred Thompson by 44 to 40 percent in hypothetical general election matchups.

Clinton's top Democratic challengers Barack Obama and John Edwards however would still beat their hypothetical Republican rivals in potential 2008 contests.

In July, Clinton held a five point lead in the same poll over Giuliani, edged out McCain by two points and had a clear lead over other contenders.

A Rasmussen poll last week had Clinton also falling behind Giuliani in a hypothetical matchup of the November 2008 general election, and narrowly beaten by McCain.

An average of all previous similar polls gives Clinton a narrow lead over possible Republican candidates.

While the US political system of awarding delegates by state in a general election would not necessarily translate into a Clinton election defeat on the basis of the poll, it may provide more fodder for her opponents.

Clinton has repeatedly portrayed herself as the most electable Democratic candidate who could stand up to Republican assaults in a general election.

But Obama and Edwards are increasingly starting to challenge that claim, as the race heats up, as other polls suggest that Clinton's clear lead in the Democratic White House race may be narrowing.

The Zogby poll was conducted online among 9,150 likely voters across the United States between November 21 and 26, and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Neither Butro nor the fasting cricket captain seem particularly like religious baffoons.

Agreed. But they also don't seem as strong and willing to crush and kill Islamists to stay in power as Musharraf is.

Sometimes, you need a despot. Granted, Musharraf isn't the strongest leader for that title, but you take the cards you're given. He's predictable and buyable and in that part of the world, that's as close to a synonym for "depandable" as you can find.

Which leads me to some uncomfortable questions about why bib Laden has free run of the provinces, allegedly. I have to believe that some of the $10bil we give Musharraf could buy bin laden's capture, and I wonder exactly how Musharraf manages the high wire act of taking the money and telling us to fuck off on the bin Laden search.

I've read blogs and web stuff on the area and the players, but its all contradictory gibberish, and none of it asks the biggest question - whether Bush is really even committing any serious efforts toward capturing bin laden, or instead letting him run loose for a variety of reasons many could speculate about until the conspiracy theory centers of their brains exploded.

And with that run on sentence, now I'm done.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
True. I hear the Europeans are hoping for a Republican victory.

The funny thing is, that might be true on one level. Some would argue, but there's a consistency in "crazy" you don't find in wonky or "open to suggestion."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This means nothing - perhaps even less than nothing because it's Zogby - but her "inevitable win", according to you, is looking ever less so, primarily because of the kooks on the far-Left:



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Ah, but run her with Obama as VP and see where those #s go.

Breck boy's cooked after Iowa.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This means nothing - perhaps even less than nothing because it's Zogby - but her "inevitable win", according to you, is looking ever less so, primarily because of the kooks on the far-Left:



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

But for those who beleive in efficient markets, Ladbrokes is still heavily favoring Hillary:

Hilary Clinton 1/2
Rudolph Giuliani 7/2
Mitt Romney 11/2
Barack Obama 8/1
Ron Paul 14/1
Fred Thompson 22/1
John Edwards 25/1
John McCain 33/1
Mike Huckabee 33/1
Bill Richardson 50/1
Condoleezza Rice 66/1
Christopher Dodd 100/1
Dennis Kucinich 125/1
Joe Biden 125/1
Sam Brownback 125/1
Duncan Hunter 150/1
Mike Gravel 150/1
Tom Tancredo 250/1

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
But for those who beleive in efficient markets, Ladbrokes is still heavily favoring Hillary:

Hilary Clinton 1/2
Rudolph Giuliani 7/2
Mitt Romney 11/2
Barack Obama 8/1
Ron Paul 14/1
Fred Thompson 22/1
John Edwards 25/1
John McCain 33/1
Mike Huckabee 33/1
Bill Richardson 50/1
Condoleezza Rice 66/1
Christopher Dodd 100/1
Dennis Kucinich 125/1
Joe Biden 125/1
Sam Brownback 125/1
Duncan Hunter 150/1
Mike Gravel 150/1
Tom Tancredo 250/1

Any bookie that has Ron Paul paying 14/1 is about as respectible as ...well... Zogby.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by LessinSF
But for those who beleive in efficient markets, Ladbrokes is still heavily favoring Hillary:

Hilary Clinton 1/2
Rudolph Giuliani 7/2
Mitt Romney 11/2
Barack Obama 8/1
Ron Paul 14/1
Fred Thompson 22/1
John Edwards 25/1
John McCain 33/1
Mike Huckabee 33/1
Bill Richardson 50/1
Condoleezza Rice 66/1
Christopher Dodd 100/1
Dennis Kucinich 125/1
Joe Biden 125/1
Sam Brownback 125/1
Duncan Hunter 150/1
Mike Gravel 150/1
Tom Tancredo 250/1

The shocking part of that listing of odds is how far Paul has moved up the chart. Demonstrably better chances than Thompson, Edwards or McCain? Really?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Any bookie that has Ron Paul paying 14/1 is about as respectible as ...well... Zogby.

2. They're only paying 2.75 for a Werder Bremen win at home to Real Madrid. Scandalous.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
2. They're only paying 2.75 for a Werder Bremen win at home to Real Madrid. Scandalous.

ZING!