A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
Apparently there was blanket coverage of it on The Outrage Channel.

That black out is a terrible srategy call on the part of the Leftie Media. You want the GOP's arch-loonies front and center on natl television, not your own.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That black out is a terrible srategy call on the part of the Leftie Media. You want the GOP's arch-loonies front and center on natl television, not your own.

I agree. Unfortunately, their rally was held by a bunch of overweight cornfed Midwestern preachers and featured Sam Brownback and no one else of note. We had Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, returned war vets, and tens of thousands of attractive young people.

So, for their next rally, what do you say we lend them, say, Al Sharpton and Jane Fonda? And Jane will make sure Mel Gibson makes it, even if he is on all his usualy "meds".

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I agree. Unfortunately, their rally was held by a bunch of overweight cornfed Midwestern preachers and featured Sam Brownback and no one else of note. We had Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, returned war vets, and tens of thousands of attractive young people.

So, for their next rally, what do you say we lend them, say, Al Sharpton and Jane Fonda? And Jane will make sure Mel Gibson makes it, even if he is on all his usualy "meds".

Isn't the anti-abortion rally just the flip of the coin of the Planned Parenthood luncheon I went to last Friday? Happens every year around January 22nd to celebrate and/or oppose Roe v. Wade. At this point, neither event particularly strikes me as newsworthy. It's like reporting on the loonies on the steps of the Supreme Court. They're there, they've always been there, they'll always be there. Not much else to say.

Though I'm happy to report that our chapter of Planned Parenthood has raised ten of the fifteen million dollars needed for a new building. Oh, and Marcia Ann Gillespie was a good speaker. And the tuna salad at the Westin Galleria is particularly good.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Isn't the anti-abortion rally just the flip of the coin of the Planned Parenthood luncheon I went to last Friday? Happens every year around January 22nd to celebrate and/or oppose Roe v. Wade.

2. They took to the streets here last week. Didn't even jam them up much.

Only thing surprising to me is that it appeared the principle rallier was part of a high-school youth group. Maybe they look up to Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda. But I question whether they really understand the issue at 16, before most of their friends have had unplanned pregnancies.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. They took to the streets here last week. Didn't even jam them up much.

Only thing surprising to me is that it appeared the principle rallier was part of a high-school youth group. Maybe they look up to Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda. But I question whether they really understand the issue at 16, before most of their friends have had unplanned pregnancies.

In many places, that would be presuming far too much.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In many places, that would be presuming far too much.

Here, too, I assume. Let me put it differently:

Before they have learned that most of their friends have had unplanned pregnancies.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's pretty obvious from this that General Petraeus does not try to take credit for the President's decision to escalate. Which is not surprising, since the decision was well reported before his appointment was announced.

Your argument made for nice political theater, though.

You are pathetic. I watched the full testimony. He not only said it was his plan but he subsequently said a Senate resolution would embolden his enemies.

The best you can do to counter that is the quote below? You reading comprehension must be pretty poor. He does not distance himelf from the president at all in this quote.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Strangely enough, I can't find a report of him saying this. Instead, I do find this, in the general's answers to advance policy questions put to him by the Senate in advance of his hearing:

• What role, if any, did you play in the development of the new Iraq strategy recently announced by the President?
  
  I met with the Secretary of Defense a couple of days after he took office and before he left for his first trip to Iraq, and we discussed the situation there during that meeting. We subsequently talked after his trip, as well.
  

• So he talked to the Secreatary of Defense about the situation.
  
  

  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I also talked to the CJCS several times during this period, noting that a population security emphasis, in Baghdad in particular, was necessary to help the Iraqis gain the time/space for the tough decisions they faced

  Here he tells the CJCs that it is necessary to secure Bagdad to give the Iraqi's time to get read for their takeover. So the idea to secure Iraq to give them time seems to be his idea. .
  
  

  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  and discussing the general force levels that were likely to be required.

  Here he is telling them what he thinks is needed as far as troops levels. There is no implication that these troops levels were determined by the president. Just the opposite.
  
  

  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As the strategy was refined, I talked on several occasions to LTG Ray Odierno to confirm that his troop-to-task analysis required the force levels that are part of the new strategy, and I relayed my support for those levels to the CJCS and the Secretary.

  Here he further gleans from the solider in the field what amount of troops are necessary to secure Bagdad. He reports these finding to the Secretary. This is not top down, but coming from him moving up.
  
  
  

  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I also supported the additional emphasis on the advisory effort and the additional resources for the reconstruction effort (both in terms of funding and personnel for PRTs and governmental ministry capacity development).

Here is the only point where he says he supports something from the top down. And this is the reconstruction effort. Not the troop surge, which ironicaly is not something the Senate is complaining about. No where in here does he imply that the troops increase came from the president and was imposed on him or that the increase in troops was not his idea.


Nice try.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are pathetic. I watched the full testimony. He not only said it was his plan but he subsequently said a Senate resolution would embolden his enemies.

The best you can do to counter that is the quote below? You reading comprehension must be pretty poor. He does not distance himelf from the president at all in this quote.

I didn't say he distanced himself from the President. The Senate asked him what role he played in the development of the President's plan. If you think his answer suggests that the plan came from him, rather than from above his pay grade in Washington, then good luck with that.

[Penske_Account]

2!

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say he distanced himself from the President. The Senate asked him what role he played in the development of the President's plan. If you think his answer suggests that the plan came from him, rather than from above his pay grade in Washington, then good luck with that.

Moreover, he expressly said that he didn't come up wih the "troop-to-task" analysis.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2!

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I agree with you here.

[Penske_Account]

I blame the Clintons.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Democrats voted unanimously for a General none of them agree with.

You mean, the Senate was presented with a Presidential appointee, who is clearly qualified for the position in question, and who plans to execute the President's lawful orders in the manner that he should....

And the fucking Dems let that go to a vote? And they voted to approve a qualified candidate, rather than gumming up a simple appointment as a means of protesting the President's policies?

What is happening to this country?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say he distanced himself from the President. The Senate asked him what role he played in the development of the President's plan. If you think his answer suggests that the plan came from him, rather than from above his pay grade in Washington, then good luck with that.

On the other hand, you have to be impressed that the Bush loyalists have already designated a fall guy for when the new approach fails.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You mean, the Senate was presented with a Presidential appointee, who is clearly qualified for the position in question, and who plans to execute the President's lawful orders in the manner that he should....

And the fucking Dems let that go to a vote? And they voted to approve a qualified candidate, rather than gumming up a simple appointment as a means of protesting the President's policies?

What is happening to this country?

Shameful, isn't it?

But remember what Spanky taught us: man = plan.

So clearly the Dems all voted for the surge. Big political win for the President.