First Glance

Posted: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:17 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, Lauren Appelbaum, and Carrie Dann
President Bush’s Iraq speech, in which he’s expected to call for an increase in US troops to Baghdad, is now officially set for Wednesday at 9:00 pm ET. Bush has added two new events to his schedule that take place the next day: 1) a lunch with military personnel at Fort Benning, GA, and 2) his participation in a military demonstration there. The speech now also will come after an Air Force gunship made raids in Somalia yesterday in search of Al Qaeda operatives believed responsible for the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. And it will come on the heels of a new USA Today/Gallup poll showing that more than 60% oppose sending more troops into Iraq.

President Bush’s previous failures with Social Security, immigration reform, and John Bolton’s nomination as UN ambassador all had at least one thing in common: They were doomed by GOP opposition, even if it happened to be just one recalcitrant Republican. And that’s why Sen. Gordon Smith’s (R) remarks yesterday opposing Bush’s likely call for an increase in troops were significant. Per NBC’s Ken Strickland, Smith -- who already criticized the war before the holidays -- said US troops should not "shed blood" over issues that "Iraqis must settle." "We cannot want democracy for Iraq more than they want it for themselves," he concluded (although he said he doesn’t want to cut funding). GOP Sens. Norm Coleman and Susan Collins also oppose the increase. All three are up for re-election in 2008.

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) today delivers his own pre-buttal to Bush’s speech at the National Press Club. Per excerpts, he will say, “An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake.” And he will say he’s introducing legislation mandating that no additional troops be sent (and no additional dollars be spent) unless Congress approves Bush’s plan. Kennedy later appears on MSNBC’s Hardball.

Now that the big game is over -- Florida crushed Ohio State, 41-14, in last night’s college football national championship -- Congress can concentrate its own contact sport. NBC’s Mike Viqueira reports that the House Democrats’ vaunted “100 hours” of legislative activity officially begins today instead of yesterday, because some members, including Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, wanted to attend last night’s game. Despite his pledge to begin working five days a weeks this year, Viq notes, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agreed to the one-day delay. "It will make no substantive difference," said Hoyer's spokesperson. "It was done in the interest of comity." (Boehner, a Buckeye fan, might today regret the comity that allowed him to attend last night’s game.) The item on today’s House agenda is voting on implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.

Finally, we’re proud to announce that MSNBC and the South Carolina Democratic Party will host the first debate of the 2008 presidential race on April 26 -- yes, the race is starting this early -- in Orangeburg, SC. MSNBC will air the Democratic debate live from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm ET, and it will take place at South Carolina State University, the historically black college that’s House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s alma mater. South Carolina NBC affiliates WIS-TV in Columbia, WYFF-TV in Greenville, and WCBD-TV in Charleston will also air the debate.

South Carolina is set to be the fourth Democratic nominating contest of 2008, after Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire -- and it will play an important role in deciding who gets the nomination. In addition, it’s the first primary that will take place in the South and that will include a substantial pool of African-American voters. All of the apparent frontrunners in the Democratic field have strengths in South Carolina: John Edwards, who was born in the state, won it in 2004; Barack Obama could be a big draw among black voters; so could Hillary Clinton, whose husband African Americans continue to adore. And it could provide a Tom Vilsack, or a Joe Biden, or a Chris Dodd a chance to pull off an important win. Game on.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

darreen your claim that all we have is bush is just pathetic. what we have is a constitution that enumerates our rights and freedoms. the costitution is under seige from you neocons and rove and bush and cheney to take away our rights and freedoms under the guise of making us safer giving up freedom or our rights will only enslave america which in reality is what you want. so when are you going to enlist in the marine corps and go fight the big bad boogie man?

ex-marine and viet vet,america (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:43 PM)

Darren, I like your commnet on uniting against a common enemy, which reminds me of an old comic strip I read named Pogo which had the famous qoute "We have met the enemy and he is us." Just because this James Buchanan wannabe wants to send more troops, some to their deaths, so we can look good is a waste. George has no feeling for these troops no matter how many photo ops he is in. They are just players in a video game to him. We must stand up and say no more. WE have spent a half a trillion dollars over 3,000 American lives, over 25,000 wounded (George has been cutting VA benefits since the war started, look it up) and who knows how many Iraqis casulties because Rummie didn't want to tell us or he didn't know. It's their country, their civil war and their responsibility. Let them have it. What are we going to do if a theocratic fundemantalist Islamic government is democratically elected? Kinds of defeats the purppose of this whole thing now, doesn't it?

Flaming Liberal, Sun City, AZ (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:46 PM)

"Right now we need to stand together to fight a common a enemy that can only defeat us by dividing us, and they seem to be doing a bang-up job of pulling it off." So is President Nero just Al-Quida's flunky when he says divisive crap like voting for democrats is supporting terrorism? Who's doing the dividing? The right wing. America haters. Those who wish to see us all reduced to poverty while the rich use us for lawn furniture. George Bush has never uttered a single word to unite this country, but he's said plenty to divide it, so by your reasoning he must be Al-Quuida....and I agree.

Lee in CA (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:47 PM)

OK, Dave, again I ask, why doesn't your democatic house and senate end the war now? That's what they've been calling for but when put to the test they never seem to actually want that. They could vote to end funding today. It worked to end the war in Vietnam. You have lost interest? Our nation's future doesn't spark a little concern for you? If this war ends up as a "huge failure" it will be because of all the misplaced anger at Bush and partisan politics. This is war. It is by definition a series of chaotic events that ends up in victory, hopefully. But when you're fighting an enemy on the battlefield and an opposition party at home who are both equally determined to see you fail what chance do you have? Do any of you want us to win? I believe you are all cheering for failure so you can say we told you so and then that might catapult a democrat into the white house in '08. Victory at all costs, huh?

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:47 PM)

Since when is this war about Ted Kennedy? Correct me if Im wrong but I thought President Bush was the commander in chief. Get over it Darren, the American people have spoken.

Bob, Orlando FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:51 PM)

I was opposed to this war from the beginning and accurately predicted what would happen. Now, all I see is more bloodshed and a huge loss by American forces there. The US presence in Iraq is like a magnet drawing more terrorist fighters into Iraq. Darren may be correct in one thing - that if the US leaves Iraq, the terrorists will follow to wherever we go. Unfortunately, this war has already been lost; no easy answers are available except to get out as quickly as possible with the least amount of death to our troops, the least amount of damage to our national credibility and the least amount of damage to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group and the European group both have plans which could work if implemented. The best option is to impeach Bush first and fix the war later.

Perry Jones (starfleet1) Tempe, AZ (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:02 PM)

Bush's lies are extreme. I first noticed Bush while his father was President and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. President Bush (Sr) and Gov. Clinton popped onto my radar screen due to their secret meetings regarding the conduct of politics and how they would groom George Jr to become President. All these things have occurred. Very, very few people accept the facts - if those facts disagree with their opinions. Most people will ignore, condemn or ridicule evidence which is contrary to what they believe regardless of how accurate the evidence is. That is what is happening on this site and will continue to happen until people find an education that teaches them how to think instead of just blindly accepting what others tell them or what they hear from the media.

Perry Jones (starfleet1) Tempe, AZ (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:11 PM)

darren is our 'usual suspect'. really doesn't have anything to offer except to drag up old (REALLY REALLY)old history in an attempt to make his point. no points here my man! Senator Smith said it all (and a republican at that!)..we should not be shedding any more blood over issues the Iraqs' have to settle among themselves; it's iraqi vs iraqi...get it?! why should our armed forces be paying the price for their civil war; we've been told our grandchildren will be paying for this war, and most probably their children, now there's a great legacy. perhaps we'll hear from Darren's grandchildren about how much they appreciated Bush's presidency ..whaddyathink?!

stix-illinois (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:18 PM)

As I have surfed the web today I have noted several posts condemning our attack on Al-Qaeda operatives in Somalia. For all the harping about getting out of Iraq and focusing on the "real" war on terror, this shows that there are too many people who are only interested in attacking Bush's policies, and finding fault in every move he makes. If we captured Bin-Laden tomorrow many of you would condemn that too.

John Shackelford, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:39 PM)

Come on folks, Darren has a right to speak his mind and we have the right to refute him. That is what America is all about. That is what the Constitution Duhhh-bya considers, "just a piece of paper" is all about. It is what I fought and got wounded for. The worst times in this nation's history, Darren, have come when the citizenry agreed to junk freedom for security (Internment camps for the Japanese-Americans, The McCarthy Era, martial law in New York during the Civil War and etc.). I agree with you that Bush is probably the worst president we have ever had (at least, in my lifetime) but supporting a fool is nothing but folly. It's sort of like letting a moron run a Fortune 500 company into bankruptcy because he is the son of a major stockholder.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:40 PM)

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC. Asthma did not keep me out of the service, so why did you not join? Also, exactly what secrets did Kennedy give the soviets. Where is the documentation to support that allegation?

TEC, Spring TX (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:46 PM)

Darren, thank you for trying to instill a little common sense to the discussion. The cries of hate, impeachment and all kinds of pet names for the President of the United States do not add anything to the dialog. It's just proof of the good job that has been done by the very left in this country of instilling hatred. I remember following my first presidential election at the tender age of 12 and seeing first hand on TV the differences in how a campaign was conducted. It was like black and white. One side only name called and fault found. The other side tried to make some kind of point and illustration of why they should be considered. Over more than 50 years I have watched the very same thing over and over again. What we really need in this country is to entitle everyone who can achieve it the best education there is. Ignorance breeds all of this hatred. Most of the haters cannot spell.

Florida Fox (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:52 PM)

After much thought, I believe our best option is to 'strategically redeploy' out of Iraq. ( GWB's new slogan "Pull back from Iraq, then Reattack") While the different factions have their civil war, we lick our wounds, rearm and bulk up. When one of the factions has emerged as victor, we go back in and mop them up. Why not let the Iraqi sects subdue the terrorists? They will weed out the foreigners, no reason for us to spend precious American lives trying to battle the miltias AND the imported 'martyrs'. I suspect whomever emerges from the civil war will be worn out, spent and ready to deal with us. I think this would be a much clearer objective, save American lives and the best way to assert our empirical control upon the Iraqi populace. I admit this approach is morally repulsive, cruel and calculating but, as we have already ticked off most of the other peoples of the world, why not go for a victory instead of losing an unwinnable war of attrition? We've already lost the moral high ground, might as well go all they way for a 'W' regardless of the costs to our international reputation. Of course our mental midget leader would probably mess this up and start another war somewhere else. For this to work, our troops would need to be well rested and geared up. It may be worth the chance, even our napoleon wouldn't be so stupid as to get into another mess, would he??

The Edge, Macon GA (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:56 PM)

Brandon, nowhere have I posted anything about Kennedy being voted into office so he could stay out of Vietnam. If some of you would actually read the intire posts before you start your personal attacks you might understand some small part of what I'm saying. I only mentioned Kennedy because he is giving the rebuttal to Bush's speech tomorrow. If he and others can critcise Bush, then he opens the door to criticism himself. He he can question Bush's character, can't I question his? And Lee in CA, I don't listen to Rush. He is a tool of the republican establshment that I have almost as much contempt for than I have for the liberal left. Both are more concerned with party than country. I have voted in every presidential election since '84 and only twice have I voted for a republican. Neither time was for George Bush. What I am advocating is a united stance. The terrorists, as I have said and we all surely know, can only defeat us by dividing us. They are accomplishing this with the help of the DEMS. Again I say, if the left wants to end the war in Iraq then why don't they do it now? Vote to end the funding now. It worked to end the war in Vietnam. The fact is they don't have the will to do it because it's the wrong thing to do. It just so happens to be the politically popular thing to say, but their actions don't match their deeds. How can you follow such hypocrisy while calling me and people who share my opinion hypocrites. Actually READ what I am saying and then I'll be happy to accept your criticism of my opinions.

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, Sc (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:04 PM)

Perry Jones-I find it a real stretch to think that Bush(sr) and Bill Clinton had secret meetings to groom George W. Bush for president. Please enlighten us as where to find these facts that very,very few people accept.

Seattle Sue (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:10 PM)

Yeah, I am cheering for failure...are you insane?? Isn't it "American" to want to save American lives?? Isn't it American to question our leaders? Believe me, my anger for George is not misplaced. He got us into this mess, I think he should be the one to put on the boots and get us out, for that matter why doesn't he send his spoiled daughters to their deaths, and maybe he can get some of his buddies who are making a pile of money on this war to write a check. No misplaced anger here.

MM (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:11 PM)

DARREN, I am reading your blogs and I can see you have toned it down and become more rational. Its the only way to communicate. As for what you are saying about a united front, it happens so rarely in this great country of ours i doubt anyone, least of all the terrorists, are expecting it. Honestly the only time in my lifetime I have seen us truly united was immediately post 9/11, especially here in NY, but it was really the whole country. This lasted about three weeks. So I dont think this will ever really happen. It seems that 70% of the voting public are united in the fact that Iraq is a mistake and should not be continued on its current path. This may be the united front that is happening, although maybe not the one you are hoping for. As for the democrats doing what they did to end the Vietnam war, I would say they are proceeding cautiously to quell the backlash they have yet to live down some 30+ years later. The fall of Saigon and images of the last Americans bein helicoptered out in massive defeat is not what the democrats or anyone wants. The situation is touchy, albeit a grave one. I have no answers.

Lynette, NYC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:21 PM)

Hello all. Sorry for the delay in getting into this very intellectual and factual debate. Here are some statistics folks 3000 dead in Iraq is less than 40,000+ in Vietnam. 1 ruthless dictator that oppressed his own people and was a threat to the world as quoted by our esteemed former President Clinton, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq." (quoted in 1998 as a justification for his military Attack on Iraq), versus no positive change in Vietnam at all. I am sorry to say for you but when history judges this President and this war they will certainly not see it as a catastrophe as you state it. As for Kennedy, I could not care less about him as he has no affect on me or currently on the Administration in control of the White House. The democrats will not impeach Bush as they would not risk their chances of uniting the Republicans and possibly losing their current edge for the '08 elections. Sorry it is called politics and everyone does it, even the open-minded, glossy-eyed, we love the world (yet won't fight to make it a better place) democrats. Look at the facts people and put them in perspective, and FYI it is obvious that we don't elect based on character as we know from FDR to Bush ALL of our Presidents have had their vices, maybe it is because they are Human??? That is not an excuse but it is to level the character bashing.

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:34 PM)

Darren, How will "the terrorists" defeat us? What will the outcome of that look like? Saudis and Egyptians and Yemenis occupying the US, policing every street corner? That'll never happen. What are you talking about? Saddam wasn't Al Qaeda, his was a secular regime. How many Iraqis attacked the US on 9/11 or in Africa or the Cole? None. The war on Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. It was a war on Saddam and now he's dead and we should train up the Iraqis and leave. Iraq should be 3 countries. The Shia, Sunni, and Kurd have hated each other for centuries. Modern Iraq was created out of colonialism and like Nigeria and Yugoslavia, is suffering violence because of that.

DJL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:47 PM)

tony there you go again telling hateful lies about dems. you failed to say that the chemical weapons iraq used against iran was sold to him by rumsfield there are pictures of rummy with a big smile as he and saddam change chemicals for $. tony there are marine and army recruiters waiting to sign you up go for it tough guy.

ex-marine and viet vet,america (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:55 PM)

Seattle Sue; Thank you for your inquiry. The facts that very, very few people will accept are simply any set of facts that are contrary to that individual's worldview or opinion. Such data is usually dismissed, ignored, ridiculed or condemned. When former Pres. Bush & former Pres. Clinton met to lead a fight for charity I wondered only why it took them so long to make their friendship public. My primary beef with the current President is not the plethora of crimes he has committed, but that he is intent upon stripping America of our rights and freedoms and the liberty upon which we were founded. I read about the attack on the World Trade Center 5 months before it occurred. I heard President Bush would initiate an attack upon Saddam's Iraq before he was elected President. I stand by my sources. Read David Ickes and similar for further details.

Perry Jones (starfleet1), Tempe, AZ (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:08 PM)

I can tell you TEC, that athsma did in fact keep me out of the service. Maybe , sir, yours was not as severe as mine once was. I would've gladly served. I sincerely thank you for your service. However, do not , sir, question my integrity. As for Kennedy I invite you all to do a web search, type in Kennedy and KGB, the information is readily available. It is in the form of a recently released memo from the Soviet archives. Little could Kennedy have known back then that the USSR would fall and this would someday be made public. In 1983 he gave info on Reagan cold war policy and, along with former Dem. Sen. John V. Tunney, who Kennedy sent to meet with Soviet officials, collaborated with Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Communist Party, and V. Chebrikov, head of the KGB, to start a PR campaign in the US to portray Reagan a s "war-mongerer" and the Soviet leadership as seeking peace. The plan was to severely damage Reagan's re-election chances in '04. Working with a foriegn government to unseat an American president is treason, sir. I don't trust traitors, nor will I support a party that continues to excuse and cover for one. And Robert, thank you as well for your service and sacrifice. I would never favor such a thing as an internment camp, nor would I support anyone such as McCarthy. I agree with Jefferson, I believe it was, who said that those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither security or freedom. But Ted Kennedy deserves to be seriously investigated and IF these reports are true he should be tried and IF found guilty sent straight to Leavenworth where he should live out the remainder of his days in shame. Any patriot would agree. And my whole reason for bringing Kennedy into this discussion, as I have stated previously, is this: If hid did it then for political gain, why would he not do it now?

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:08 PM)

Tony, the Vietnam War lasted a lot longer that 3 years. You forgot to mention the over 22,000+ that have been injusred over 10,000 of them so seriously that they cannot return to combat. This disparity in the numbers has been explained by the better armor and on the spot madical the soldiers receive. This war is not over yet. When it is I would take the actual number dead and combine it with half the number of soldiers seriously injured. Would probably give you a better comparision of the tru dead compared to Vietnam figures. Yep, Hussein did all those things. HE IS DEAD. Mission accomplished. Time to go. They have a democratically elected government. Up to them to solve their civil differences. As Bush stated, we did bring them democracy. they need to stabilize their country. We do not need to be in the midst of whater war they seem to be fighting with each other.And oh, yeah that 'Nam figure is 58,000+, with still MIAS not accounted for.

Desmond (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:09 PM)

Hi Ex-marine and Viet Vet, thank you for your service to our Country, I truly appreciate it and the service of all of our veterans and current soldiers. However, I would ask that you not accuse me of lying about anything, I did not tell any lie in my post and would ask you to point out what lie you mean. I quoted FACTUAL STATISTICS and specific quotes from our former President. Where do you find a lie? I understand that you may not agree with me but that does not give you the right to call me a liar, nor do I have the right to do the same to you. It is called R-E-S-P-E-C-T, ask Aretha about it. By the way thank you for calling me tough, you would certainly know what that is from being a Marine so it must be a compliment coming from you.

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:11 PM)

DJL, I am inclined to agree with you on your proposed solution of training the Iraqis and leaving and of Iraq becoming 3 countries (that is something that someone is currently pushing in Congress if I remember correctly). You do understand though that this will likely take time for it to happen. Again I agree with your suggestion, so don't think I am "lying again", I think we may just defer on how to accomplish this.

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:14 PM)

DJL: How will the terrorists defeart us? Can you not envision any scenario where that is a possibility? If not, that is precisely why it is possible. How about this: Some Sadaam-like dictator, maybe Sadaam would've done it himself had he been left in power, or someone like Ahamenijad gets nukes. They put a few in the hands of someone like, say, Osama Bin-Laden. Then one morning as we all get ready to head off to work we dicover that this time no planes hit any buildings, no, this time New York is utterly and completely destroyed, and Maybe L.A. or San Francisco with it. Then Bin-Laden announces that there are more nukes hidden somewhere else in the US and if we don't meet certain demands they will detonate those as well. There's a scenario for you. Too far-fetched? Yeah, probably. No way anything like that could ever happen here. I'm convinced. Bring home the troops now! Let's stop this foolish war concocted in Crawford for poliical gain! All hail the Democrat Saviours! How could we ever manage without them to show how? Puh-leeeease.

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:29 PM)

Darrin, If an escalation doesn't work, then what? I really am curious as to what you think should be done if it doesn't work. How much loss is too much for us to sustain? It seems to me that if an escalation was going to work, it should have been done 3 1/2 years ago, before this civil war started (low-level or not)and since the foreign terrorists weren't there until we went in. Unfortunately, just because we kill or capture 1 terrorist, doesn't mean another one doesn't crop up right behind the first. We will never kill or capture them all. You must change the ideology behind the tactic of terror and that won't happen at the point of a gun. This administration has squandered lives in their negligence and arrogance. Why in the world should they be trusted now? You earn respect and trust, and this administration hasn't earned mine. It seems to me that this administration spouts talk about "our brave men and women" but really couldn't care less about them. If Bush is really so intent on the "global war on terrorism" why did we not stay in Afghanistan and finish the right job? As an after thought, if Bush does set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, what happens if those benchmarks or requirements are not met (just like last time when the Iraqi's were supposed to add 6 battalions and only added two, many of which just didn't show up)? What are the consequences for the Iraqi government if they continue to do nothing to change the situation?

Mindi, Sacramento (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:31 PM)

"If we captured Bin-Laden tomorrow many of you would condemn that too." I condemn the fact that President Treason disbanded the ops group searching for Bin Laden. Do you?

Lee in CA (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:33 PM)

Ex-marine, if it weren't for hateful lies the right would have to shut up forever. It's all they have.

! (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:36 PM)

A history lesson at the below link. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

TEC-Spring TX (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:46 PM)

Well, Mr. Exclamation Point (if that is alright to call you that). I do believe that both sides of the isle have shared their own batch of lies when it has suited them well. I would challenge you along with Ex-marine to tell me in what part of my post did I lie? Otherwise stay in your glass house!!! I gave factual statistics and quotes and you took the five year old approach by yelling "liar, liar, pants on fire." Very big of you, and you claim to be so much better than those you criticize. RIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!! I hope that the exclamation is loud enough for you.

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:57 PM)

Darren, How is the war in Iraq going to do anything about Iran's nuclear capability? It's not. And now we've disarmed Iraq (it effectively doesn't have an air force and its army is too fractured and concerned about security to fight a war), Iran doesn't any nation to counterbalance it, regionally. The war is a failure in this regard as well. Not to mention Saddam didn't have WMDs. Yellowcake, aluminum tubes, anyone?

DJL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:00 PM)

"I did not tell any lie in my post and would ask you to point out what lie you mean. " I pointed out one of your lies - it made no difference. You speak without honor.

Lee in CA (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:02 PM)

Tony, your writings are very thoughtful and well reasoned. I disagree with you on many(most)of your points, agree with you on others. You sound very much like a young me 20-30 years ago. You still have some idealism and a want(need) to believe as true some of the 'facts' we receive, that many here dispute. I think you understand what some of the more emphatic bloggers on these posts are really attempting to say, rather than just dismissing them as 'leftist spin'. Our peoples' opinions are divided. This has always been and always will be. We need all of our collective positions right, left and center to be aired, discussed, even the ones that disgust! That is the secret to this Great Experiment called the United States. We can all disagree and yet still love and defend our country in our own unique way. The veterans here deserve our respect, no matter what their beliefs nor how much we agree or disagree with them nor how eloquently or how poorly they express themselves in print. (FYI I am not a veteran, my age put me in a slot where I did not have to register for the draft nor selective service.I am not worthy to carry a vet's boots, but I am American too and have my right to disagree with them) My experiences and observations have led me to a much more jaded view of our politicians. I do not believe they truly represent the people they are elected to serve. Oh, they may start out that way, idealistic, going to change the world, but in time they lose that drive and fall into one of the many traps of politics. Both sides have good and bad, honest and corrupt people. There is hope and we will persevere provided our Constitutional Rights remain intact.

Owen Vander, Evansville, IN (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:08 PM)

I agree with Darren about standing up together against the enemy which divides us. However, the enemy which divides us is not Osama Bin-Laden or the terrorists, rather it is the men in the White House. Cheney and Bush are carefully orchestaring this war to achieve their aims. They orchestrated this war to line their pockets with oil money by building a pipeline through Afghanistan and controlling Iraqi oil. Bush continuously speaks about people uniting, but then attacks those who disagree with him. Iraq had no WMD nor did it have any connections with terrorism or terrorist groups. Bush quashed all investigations into the World Trade Center attacks because he knew where they would lead. The enemy does not live in the Mideast. The enemy lives in DC.

Perry Jones (starfleet1), Tempe, AZ (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:20 PM)

Florida Fox-Are you saying that only the left stoops to name calling and twisting facts? How about the swift boat ads----Bush saying if you vote Demcratic,that you are voting for the terrorists----Bush telling us to keep shopping while our troops are in harm's way.----Florida Fox asking how a JERK like Kennedy keeps being elected.----The butcher job done on Max Cleland. The moral is don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. I feel there is plenty of name calling, twisting of facts being done on both sides,but it doesn't make it right.

Seattle Sue (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:22 PM)

TEC: I have attempted to answer your question on the evidence of Kennedy's communication with the Soviet KGB, but for some reason, MSNBC doesn't seem to be posting it. I wonder why? I will try again. Do a web search, type in Kennedy and KGB. You will find the info readily available on many reputable sites. It comes in the form of a recently released memo from the Soviet archives. According to this memo Kennedy in 1983 provided info on Reagan cold war policy and offered to collaborate with Soviet leadership, both civilian and military, to start a PR campaign in the US to portray Reagan as a "war-monger" and Soviet leadership as wanting peace. This was done as an attempt to seriously damage Reagan's re-election chances in '84. Collaborating with a foriegn government as an attempt to unseat an American president is treason, my friend. Kennedy sent former Dem. Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with V. Cherbikov, head of the KGB to discuss the plan, who then passed the message to Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Communist Party, on Kennedy's behalf. The congressional staffer who brought this memo to light has been suspended. He works for Dem. Representative Jane Harmon. This memo desrves serious investigation, and if it proves to be authentic, Kennedy should be charged and tried accordingly. This is relevant to this discussion because Kennedy is one of the leading Bush-dissenters and just today gave the rebuttal to Bush's new plan for Iraq. If Kennedy was willing to do it during the height of the cold war for political gain, why shouldn't we believe he would be willing to do it now?

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:22 PM)

Owen, I agree with your post completely. You are likely very correct in your assertion as I do have idealistic views (although I am not a Eutopian-type thinker) and do have more faith in our government than it sometimes deserves. Our forefathers had enough faith to be called traitors and every soldier that fought in past wars and is fighting now must believe in something worth fighting for, even when they do not agree with particular wars they are involved in. I also agree that every single one of them deserves respect no matter where they served for 1 day or a lifetime. I would never disrespect or take for granted that service. I apologize if I have done that but I have only defended myself when I have been called a liar as I have not lied about anything. I think the root of the disagreement is that I can see the good that has come from the current war and can see (based on looking back at history and other wars we have been in and why) that it is worth fighting for. Everyone in the world deserves the rights we currently have and that is as simple as it is.

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:23 PM)

I hate to say it and sound cynical and crazy but NONE of this surprises me. Sad, yes, surprised no. I watched Bush's win on the TV back in November of 2000 too shocked to cry and, I swear it, started telling anyone who'd listen that there would be a horrible war and he would destroy Iraq...I was written off as a kook. When 9/11 took place, I was shell shocked and beyond sad, but Bush's speech gave me no comfort...I shuddered. I had this terrible horrible feeling that Afganistan was a foil and we were really invading Iraq...I was told I was paranoid...after all who would invade Iraq when Bin Laden was in Afganistan??? What a crazy liberal I was! People like me hated America. Now over 3 years after destroying Iraq, I don't take any pleasure in having told anyone so...only shame that no one stopped it. Bush may be all we have but I don't see that as an excuse for a transparent agenda. We may not be quite ready to leave Iraq but sending more troops is unconscionable. I think impeachment may be the only way. Reason doesn't work on a man concinced that God speaks through him. I don't say this because I'm a liberal...I know impeachment would be political suicide for liberals like me. I just know that sometimes there is a greater good worth a 25 year out of power sacrifice. You are welcome to disagree with me but i stand by this....I still have that right as an American...until this administration alters the Constitution again.

Sad In DC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:27 PM)

Lee, please do not challenge my honor, you don't know me and know nothing about me. I love my country, I love my family, and I would do anything to make them both the best they can possibly be. The fact is that this discussion is not about me it is about political opinions and the fact that you can only attack me rather than defend your opinion states as much as is needed about you!

Tony, Fort Myers, FL (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:28 PM)

Ex-Marine Viet Vet you keep saying "there are marine and army recruiters waiting to sign you up go for it tough guy." I already did and I enjoyed serving my country I also thank you for your service but I have to agree with Tony. He was just quoting you the facts...tough guy

Mad Mike Ex Army (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:33 PM)

Darren Pope---The subject of Ted Kennedy passing secret documents to the KBG.----I would think if there was anything to this, the Republicans have not done their duty to our country. I beleive with the Republicans being in charge for years that they should have charged him and had a trial if this is true. As much as Kennedy is a thorn in their sides, I suspect they would have welcomed the chance to tear him up.

Seattle Sue (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:42 PM)

DJL: Have you ever given any thought to the fact that we might someday soon be forced to war with Iran as well? Iraq is the perfect staging ground for such an invasion. We didn't ask for this war and I don't want it anymore than anyone else. It was started by muslim extremists, not Bush. Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror. The problem is everyone wanted a tidy little war without American or civilian casualties that would be over in a few days. Sadaam did have WMD's, or did you miss that little tidbit? Did you not get the recent reports showing that Sadaam was indeed attempting to reconstitute his nuke program, or hear from the former Iraqi general who has admitted WMD's were moved into Syria in the days and weeks before the US-led invasion? Maybe you don't want to know such things because then your argument is blown to pieces. Are you part of the crowd that thinks we should leave Iran to build nukes as it sees fit and just cross our fingers and hope they don't put them in the hands of those who would use them against us? Do you not believe Ahamenijad when he says he wants to defeat America and wipe Israel off the map? If he doesn't mean it he certainly shouldn't be threatening it. The bottom line is this, no matter what anyone says, no matter what evidence is laid out in front of you, you will continue to spout the same tired old left-wing rants until the mushroom cloud appears on the horizon over LA. Even then it'll probably be a republican conspiracy that caused it.

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:52 PM)

Oh my God! Perry is one of those cospiracy theorists who say Bush is responsible for 9-11. This is one of the reasons so few pay attention to even the more cogent arguments from the left. It becomes harder all the time to tell the true lunatics from the misguided, or just plain stubborn. God help us all with the left running both houses.

John Shackelford, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:58 PM)

Owen Vander. Very well put. It sounds like you have almost given up though, I agree with your statement "I do not believe they truly represent the people they are elected to serve." But I also think that while I don't agree with everything Bush does we are (and history will show) in the right for bringing the war to the terrorists thereby taking it away from our own backyard. I respect what you said about our veterans and it was my belief when I was serving our country that I was protecting the rights of people like you so you could form your own opinions regardless if I agreed with you or not. That is the great thing about living here in the US. It's sad that so many people take what we have for granted until they people see first hand how some people live under dictatorships, poverty, crimes against humanity they'll never quite get it. That's why it cracks me up when supporters of the Democratic party who claim to be tolerent and accepting can't handle opinions that vary from their own. We are all free to have our own opinions the difference I've found between right leaners and left is the right leaning individuals tend to check their facts from multiple sources not one source like moveon.org. I am sorry if this sounded like an attack on the left I'm just speaking from personal experience

Mad Mike Army Vet (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:13 PM)

Perry, where is there any evidence of your outlandish claims? If you can show it to me I'll give it serious consideration and if it is true, then Bush and Cheney should immediately removed from office. Funny though, when challenged for evidence of Kennedy's treason, I readily provided the source and received only more rants about how Bush and Cheney are pocketing all this Iraqi oil money and evidently orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. Thanks for proving once again that the left doesn't deal in fact and evidence, but use spin and rhetoric as their primary tools.

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:14 PM)

Seattle Sue: Again you apparently did not read my entire post about Kennedy. I never said he passed secret documents to the Soviets or anyone else. Read again. Do your own investigation. The fact is, yes, the Republicans have shirked the duty on this one. Why? I don't know. Maybe because they fear that it'll be viewed as just some baseless scandal and the dems will skillfully turn it around on them. The left is good at that sort of thing. The fact that most people have never even heard about it is what scares me. But like I said, do your own investigation. The memo is out there. Were it a republican, or a member of any party, I'd be just as angry and want something done. If it were Sen. Lott or any other republican the bloggers would come out of the woodwork and scream for his head. I don't post anything here or anywhere that I am just blindly repeating. I check the facts as best as I can first. I just ask the same from everyone else.

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:24 PM)

To Darren Pope. I have googled and can not find what I would call a confirm Main stream media report. Not even Fox news has a report regarding the Kennedy and KGB letter. So far the report is of a professor Kengor statements in a book and as far as I can tell he has not provided prof of the letter. I do believe, if there were any positive confirmation of such a document, then the MSM would publish the letter front page. Remember what happen to Dan Rather and he thought he has a smoking gun. Until there is a smoking gun regarding the letter, then I would have to assume all current reports to be hersay and the subject of the blog and right wing pundits, who have no obligation to confirm their sources. If it is true then treason charges should be sought, but you should not convict anyone on hersay.

TEC-Spring TX (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:26 PM)

TEC: There was a report in the Washington Times in Oct. '06 about the KGB memo, as well as the London Times and several other sources. The memo is not a rumor you can read it for yourself. It has been substatiated by Cherbikov himself. It is also a fact and you can find out for yourself that Sen. Tunney did travel to the USSR to meet with Soviet offiials in the spring of 1983. I'm not saying that it is a stone cold fact that Kennedy commited treason, sir, I said it deserves serious investigation. Don't you agree? I'm sure you agree if it were Dick Cheney or Karl Rove who were being accused. Be fair my friend. Spend more than a few minutes on a Google search. It will be worth your time. As I said earlier, any patriotic American would want this possibility to at least be taken under consideration by the proper authorities, right?

Darren Pope, Myrtle Beach, SC (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:38 PM)

The Rush faithful have found the NBC blog. They'll repeat their assinine accusations and dredge up 40 year old grievences ad naseum, while ignoring the situation at hand, preferring to obfusacate and twist, which is exactly how they came into power behind the most ridiculous excuse for a leader since Corporal Agarn of "F" troop. Two days after a stolen election it's all "get over it," but Ted Kennedy while be the villian of choice for another 40 years. Small, meaningless people who simply hate America's ideals while pretending to protect them. The New American Fascists.

Lee in CA (Sent Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:46 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=28679