Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Kendall Rollins — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:28:22 GMT

A real lack of leadership from Reid and Pelosi. They will pay at the polls in a year. If they can't get the war issue right, who is going to trust them with anything else?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Bob House, Dover DL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:31:54 GMT

Moderates are needed to lead the house and the senate, not dyed in the wool liberals like Nancy and Harry. These two are too tied into the far left wing nut jobs, because of that, they cannot be leaders. The Democrats had a real opportunity to change things in the last year. They have blown it big time.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:42:36 GMT

I can imagine the democrats are cursing and shaking because of the success the surge is showing. Considering they never gave the military a chance in the beginning, specifically Hillary Clinton, The liberals must be quaking in their shoes at all the violence going down in Iraq. If there is one thing Liberals cannot stand is success in the military.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:44:35 GMT

Pentagon survey of reservists in 05-06 found 44%
were dissatisfied with how Labor dept. handled complaints of discrimination based on military status. 29% said they had difficulty getting info they needed from govt. agancys charged with protecting their rights. So bush/cheney send Americans to fight and die and suffer for their wacko religious oil war but wont protect their jobs when troops survive and come home, I am sure jerri is proud of bush/cheney.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:55:08 GMT

Saying the bills haven't passed either chamber while saying Democrats run both chambers is misleading to the public. It takes sixty votes in the Senate to move forwards unobstructed, and the only people responsible for falling short of that vote total on each of those bills are Republicans, not Democrats.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rick, WS, NC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:58:23 GMT

Too bad robinson has been conned by the chickenhawks into believing the tripe he is repeating...70% of us think this war is a mistake and being run by a bunch of incompetent boobs...here's something else for robinson to ponder...none of those sponsoring his baloney has ever served a day in their lives...not one...they were too busy getting deferrments or joining the texas national guard to serve when their nation needed them...chickenhawk party

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

diane — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:00:00 GMT

I keep hoping the republicans see the light and that by stubbornly standing by the worst president ever is hurting them and their party.
They need to end this white elephant of a war. It was wrong from the beginning and the neocons should be banned from any involvement with anything to do with government.
I personally feel they, along with bush and Cheney need to be sent to a permanent vacation to the Gitmo hotel.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Independent @ large — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:04:56 GMT

And it not just the democrats in Congress that are losers, look at Hollywood and their anti-America, Military trashing, movies on IRAQ, people are NOT paying to see hollywood trash. Redford, crusie and streep are losers. Even the Media is avoiding Iraq.... adn if you think all these Dem seats are safe, you better watch out, Hillary can now claim she was "right" on Iraq. The "tide" is turning against Repubs and Dems

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

just thinking — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:07:08 GMT

Is there a link between private security being watched closely and a decline in violence in iraq, seems when blackwater was brought under control violence dropped immediately, just a thought.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:09:37 GMT

Who in the heck cares what others think of us?....

Maybe we should just stop all foreign aid to all these countries. I'll bet they will be feeling love to us a lot more if we show them that we don't care about them anymore. Israel and Iraq should continue to get our Aid, everyone else can go jump in the lake for all I care. If we cut the foreign aid money, I'll bet we can save a huge chunk of money for our congress to waste on.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

IntheMiddle, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:35:45 GMT

Who gives a sh%$ about what other countries think about us. They hated us before Iraq and if you dont believe that then your just naive. The rest of the world needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs them.

Rick, WS: YOU dont know who in that group served. Have you served? That is what I thought. BTW: Everyone was attempting to get deferred during Vietnam. Some did, some didnt. I happen to know SSG Robinson, he was not conned as you say. This man is a decorated veteran not some Playstation or Blogger warrior back here in the states complaining about everything his country does.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:39:32 GMT

We do need different political leaders--I quite frankly am tired of all the labels, moderate, conservative and liberal. To my mind, we need lawmakers who are willing to put their big fat
egos(sp?) on the side along with their strong political leanings, who are willing to accept that they alone do not have all the right answers to all our country's problems, who are willing to listen to other points of view, and then who are willing to "give a little" so that some progress for the good of our country can be made.

I am sure there were disagreements and arguing when our forefathers were drafting our Constitution; yet they were able to craft a document that has governed us for over 200 years. They worked together for the common good of the people of the US. If they could do it; why can't today's politicians?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lee Delaney Las Vegas, NV — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:42:01 GMT

I find it unbelievable that some halfwit, wounded or not, lots of us were wounded in wars, can make as inane and ridiculous a comment as "we need to fund the troops. We are making progress in Iraq." After nearly five years we still have almost 200,000 troops in a nation of 25 million, and if you count other nations and mercenary assassins, near a half million.

And what progress have we made? Well the violence is down, the violence is down, the violence is down. And is that important? The violence could drop to zero, the war could be won, the troops could be brought back home, Iraq could have a democratic governement and the end result of all this would be nothing but the lessening of America's security and a hastening of our departure from the world's stage.

Even if we win what will be the result? Iraq will be a democratic state but its people will still be Muslims, it will still be surrounded on all sides by current or soon to be Isalamic Republics, it will be a thorn in the side of these republics, another Israel of our creation and our responsibility, and the moment we cut our support and stop spending a hundred billion a year to maintain the farce, the government will fall, a new civil war will break out and Iraq will become a new Islamic Republic aligning with the others as an enemy of the US. Hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and a nation's honor will have been for nothing except to follow the dictates of an incompetent fool who hadn't the slightest idea of what to do after 9/11. More of the same year after year after year is a pretty poor return for our sacrifices.

The issue is still the war itself in Iraq, not the amount of the violence, and as long as we let ourselves be distracted from the course of ending it by trivial, immaterial things like this we shall get what we deserve sooner rather than later.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

karlos — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:43:54 GMT

70% of the public wants somebody versed in international affairs to bring us back to respected position. the top three ce&o have no real experience and are lightweights in this arena, even they admitt that joe biden has the best handle on iraq,iran,afgan.,pakistan and so did 70 plus senators for his iraq solution. given that why are you all backing the lightweights and letting the best qualified languish at 3%? joe talks straight, stands firm, and has the international savy to lead the us out of this mess and back to prominence. get your priorities straight and actually look at this candidate without the preconcieved notion of which is best.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lisa, Fort Worth TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:50:11 GMT

If an anti-war group featured this soldier in an ad, they would be criticized for "using the troops for political gain". Certainly rush would say the soldier was brainwashed by the loony left.

No matter what opinion a soldier has of this conflict, they have the right to be heard. THEY EARNED IT. It's just sad that pro-war advocates don't appreciate the opinion of those who served and are now against the war. By the same token, anti-war voices often have little respect for vets who belive the war is just. We should respect our veterans, no matter how they (and we) feel about Iraq.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

MK,MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:02:36 GMT

another mis-leading account of congressional goings-on.

republicans even though the so-called minority in congress has in actuality the ability to block and kill anything the dems try to do.

the answer to the quagmire is simple, vote in more dem congress persons in 08 to eliminate the republican resistance to change.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

John B, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:04:22 GMT

Once again Politico proves that they're nothing but the Drudge Report with a thin veneer of respectability. Anyone who's being honest knows those measures have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate and it's irresponsible of the MSM to not point it out. As far as the Surge is concerned violence is down but why? Most likely because now there's a US cop on every corner. Violence remains just as high as ever in areas where troops were not surged. What happens next Spring when it's inevitable that troop levels will decrease? We'll see. What of Kurdistan, the only part of the country that has worked to date? In return for the Kurds cooperation we've turned a blind eye to their cross-border raids into Turkey. That isn't acceptable to Turkey, who we desperately need as a logistical link. This morning the Turks launched helicopter rocket attacks at Kurdish positions in Iraq, using the Bush administration's own anti-terrorist rhetoric to make it clear they will brook no interference. Those are the facts, if you don't want to face them you're just going along with the failures that have been the obvious outcome of failing to plan for all eventualities. It doesn't mean I want to fail. Once again I'll state that I'm a proud, patriotic American excercising my right to have and express an opinion of my own. Anyone who doesn't recognize that right is an insignificant, fascist toad.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dave, Tn — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:07:19 GMT

Democrats need to worry about things shifting from Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Didn't UBL order his troops to focus on Pakistan? What happens if things calm down in Iraq enough that it becomes the media's forgotten war? Remember Afghanistan and even Pakistan have always been the justified war for dems.
Here's to hoping things do calm down in Iraq, and they can become as filthy rich and spoiled as some of their oil rich neighbors.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Florida independent — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:28:33 GMT

In response to Shadow, maybe if the democrats stopped piling unwanted, unrelated pork into the military spending bills more republicans would be on board. The old argument of they did it to us so now we need to do it to them is not the basis that the democrats ran on last year. I seem to remember them claiming a new era of transparency and bipartisanship. For a group that is suppose to be so anti-war and President Bush, I find it interesting that the have to bribe their own members with pork in a bill to get them to vote for and ideal that should be able to stand on it's own merit.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:29:04 GMT

Spoken like a true republican jerry. Walk boldly and carry a big smirk. When we went into Iraq we had supporters from many Muslim nations that disappeared quickly when the Crusader went in to steal their oil.When we can't control a country the size of California we need all the friends we can get.
If some country invaded the United States I for one would be doing everything in my power to stop them.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:02 GMT

John B, Des Moines, IA, well put, anyone who follows what happens on Capitol Hill can see the reason why these bills have failed. It is not because the majority of Dems but the majority of the Repuks who keep goose stepping with the dunce in chief. Maybe they are just afraid of losing their lucrative contracts? The problem with Iraq is that we failed in our own convictions of treating people PERIOD. We are now seen in the eyes of the world just as ruthless as those countries that the dunce in chief listed as an axis of evil. Jerry, if you think that not worrying about what the rest of the world thinks of us, maybe you need a lesson on world economics, because we have a very large sum of debt held by countries around the globe that could easily destroy us economically. As for treating veterans with respect, I have just one question, where were you when the Repuk party called people like me UNPATRIOTIC? Enough said

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dylan, Seattle — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:40 GMT

I constantly see the media and people say the surge is a success... When you bring in a bunch of troops and the death toll increases dramatically for months creating the worst year yet for deaths then that death toll finally goes back down to what it was before the surge and this is a success? What exactly did we accomplish? I'm either missing something or there is a real sense of denial going on.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:54:25 GMT

I don't understand polls. The one you cite here leads one to believe that Americans want a President who is well versed in International Relations. If that is true, why aren't candidates like Senator Biden, Gov. Richardson, and to some degree, Senator Dodd leading the pack? They have far more foreign relations experience that Senator Clinton and Obama yet they are way behind in public opinion polls. What gives? I'm not so sure that I give too much credence to any polls at this point.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:05:24 GMT

Oh God let's see here:

We got someone in DC who thinks we should all hold hands and turn to Mecca. That won't fly....

Then we have a bitter army guy who talks about the republicans as if they are nothing but a bunch of Nazi's. Tell you what, when i see the Nazi Swazita over the white house and people really goose stepping down Pennsylvania Ave. to the capitol and Jewish people being shot in the streets, you might have me there. But until then, can we back off with this Nazi stuff? It makes you liberals look like you are growing your own grass in the back yard and smoking wayyyyyyyy to much of it.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:09:22 GMT

"Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us?"

Well, we have soldiers stationed in many foreign countries. Would be nice if those countries liked us a little. Safer for the soldiers too, I would think.

We trade with countries around the world. What happens to our economy, jobs, if those countries suddenly decide to longer buy our products? We rely heavily on oil from foreign suppliers. Might be nice if those countries hated us less, might affect the price of oil and gas in our country.

Terrorists in several countries openly express their hatred for America and our people. Do we want the number of those terrorists to grow? Might make us less safe here at home.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

pat huntington ny — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:11:08 GMT

Just because the Dems are in the majority doesn't mean they are total control of Congress or the Federal Gov't - which is what the article seems to indicate. As prior posts noted, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get work done there, and since the Dems are only a one vote majority in that house, it is clear the real propblem lies with Republicans for any inaction....the Great Obstructionist Party! And no one posting here has any real idea as to whether the so called surge is working, or if it is, is it meaningful long standing success? Will the Surge get the sunnis and shiites to end their centuries old hatred and distrust for one another? Will it get the people in Iraq to get their own house in order? NO!

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Matt, Houston, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:13:06 GMT

To reiterate: It takes a 2/3 vote majority in each house of congress to ensure a bill can be passed by over riding a presidential veto. This idiot we currently have in the White House is vetoing EVERYTHING coming out of Congress just because it is coming from a Democratically controlled congress. Look what he did with SCHIP. The Democrats have REPEATEDLY asked for conferences with the White House to come to a compromise but good ole Dubya has refused to even meet with them. This makes it the Democrats fault? I think not.

The 'pork the Democrats have attached'?!?! Are you serious? What about the 'bridge to nowhere', the mule museum, and other earmarks too numerous to list attached by the Republicans? The number one earmarker honor is currently held by a Republican. Both party's do this so don't give us any of that 'holier than thou' crap about the earmarks Democrats are attaching.

Besides, the things the White House is complaining about are things like, oh, you know, unimportant things like childrens health care, ensuring the middle class doesn't get hit with the AMT, boosting funding above Bush's request for veterans, money to help the poor, changes to the tax code so that the very rich actually pay more than 15% in taxes while the rest of us are paying 20%, 30%, 38% . . . you know, unimportant things (yes, for you right wing Bush apologizers, that was sarcasm).

Get a grip, right wingers, you are going to lose big time come November 2008. Get ready for a Democratically controlled House and Senate that can over ride any veto if, by some very slim chance a Republican wins the White House . . . but then, they won't have to worry about it as there will be a Democrat in the White House who will actually have a brain . . . and know how to use it.

Get ready for an economic boom (as was seen under Bill CLinton where we actually had surpluses and were paying down the national debt, the Bush White House failed to take action to prevent the impact of the Internet bubble burst by sitting and doing nothing) fueled by a more stable Middle East due to actual diplomacy (vs. the current 'cowboy', 'my way or the highway', 'you're either with us or against us' mentality of the idiocracy currently running things), a boom in R&D into and production of alternative energy sources (not more drilling), tax credits for green investing, a fair tax code that does not punish the rich, just ensures they pay the same percentage as everyone else, etc., etc., etc.

And now, here come the really nasty responses to this posting. I can take it, I was right about the Iraq war, Bush and the economy in 2000/2001/2002 and I'm right about this. Watch the attacks on the messenger and not the message, it should be entertaining.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

greg opelika alabama — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:17:46 GMT

obama what a name sounds like a terriost name . i beleive he did come from the terriost family like every one says in america .

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lee Holmes — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:18:13 GMT

John B: You are in error. Indeed,one merely turn not to POLITICO[which is in no way a ''Drudge''-type report as it leans liberal], but to the websites of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to find out how these votes are being made up according to party. What we find,is that the majority of freshmen Democrat legislators who came in on the 06 wave are voting with the GOP minority in these Iraq bills,as they are crafted by those who are too far to the leftwing to have any chance of success.Pass the the ''blind eye''given Turkey,and this is nonsense. The adminsitration is working closely with Turkey allowing them access to our recon sats which are picking up the movements of PKK rebels on the Kurdish side of the border. ''Helicopter raids''are a far cry from full divisional-strength incursion across the border.Further,where troops are not ''surged''in Iraq ,the violence continues to diminish,leading to its lowest levels since 2005.

Also see:

www.senate.gov

www.house.gov

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Matt, Houston, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:20:49 GMT

Why is the surge working? Because of General Petraius(sp?). He is the only reason. He has implemented a strategy he was using in a section of Iraq before he got the top job. His was the only section in Iraq that was actually showing progress until he was told to stop the way he was doing things and go into the bunker mentality.

This General really understands that you can't force people to do what you want them to but rather you have to talk to them and get them personally involved. You can't convince anyone you are on their side when you only come out among them on patrols or missions.

He has also said that this war will not be won militarily but requires diplomacy. Too bad the idiots in the White House haven't learned anything from him. You can not accomplish anything unless you talk to people and understand why they are doing what they are doing and make them understand why you are doing what you are doing.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:22:23 GMT

It's not about the surge or reduced numbers of deaths for some of you righties...it's about war policy and the effectiveness of the U.S. to negotiate and deal with threats. It has been diminished under Bush and the necon ideology. Listening to Bush yesterday was frightening..he really thinks military campaigns in foreign lands actually prevents local terrorism. All it takes are a few men (Britian bombings). Republicans care about statistics, numbers, and party lines. Everyone else cares about the security and integrity of our country, that's what the GOP doesn't get....at all.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:25:28 GMT

Dot it's because the Clinton's have a stranglehold on the Democratic party that won't end until it is proven they can lose an election. Plus after the last 2 elections there is a certain paranoid reaction about winning at all costs. The same effect for the GOP b/c they are desperate after fumbling on Bush.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Ken, Talihina OK — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:26:11 GMT

Cowards on one side, criminals on the other.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:28:15 GMT

Yes, the Dems are crashing and burning, but yes, the GOP has blocked everything they've tried to do, and when something gets through the GOP obstructionists, Bush vetos it. And, sure, the Surge is working and deaths are down---recently, though this year is still our worst yet---but so is our presence in S. Korea---fifty years later. Having a soldier on every street or babysitting an ally for two generations is NOT a fix, it's an admission that the people we're protecting can't, or won't, do it for themselves. How is that a success, considering all the zillions of our hard-earned dollars are going into this, with no real victory to show for it?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Keeth, D11 — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:28:22 GMT

I am in Iraq working for the DoD overseeing the contractors. I invaded Iraq in 03 where people praised us and thanked us. Now, I feel lke we are a unwanted parasite sucking all the oil out of Iraq. We all know the War was badly mismanaged; when Rumsfeld ignored Gen Shinseki I knew that this war would turn in to another Vietnam (A war run by Politicians). Face it Bush is accountable.
I hear what the guy is saying Victory in Iraq, and I think long and hard on it, but for the life of me I do not know what that means.
Can anyone explain to me what Victory in Iraq means?
I am here I see the people, talk to the troops and watch them deploy for missions, but nothing they are accomplishing I can honestly say add up to Victory for Iraq.
If the Sunnis and Shites stop fighting does that means we have Victory in Iraq?
If we start getting the full capactity of oil promised by W. that would pay for the war would we get Victory in Iraq?
If Al Qaeda in Iraq is vanquished does that mean Victory in Iraq?
If people can just learn to live together and treat one another with respect and kindness is that Victory in Iraq?
Or if we just kill all that is here and leave a barren wasteland is that Victory in Iraq?
Out of all my questions I can concieveably see one being accomplished. The hate here has been for over thousand years and democracy will not change that hate.
So as I sit here wasting my time before going to play basketball with kids who might not play the next night ask yourself what is Victory in Iraq?
I do know Sacrifce in Iraq and what we service members have given so people can discuss this topic; the prices we have paid, but Victory seems like a pipedream like Victory in Vietnam

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:29:38 GMT

greg opelika, alabama

I thought this issue was dealt with yesterday. The fact that his name is Obama does not make him a terrorist. Your post is an insult to Senator Obama.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

SW GR, MI — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:30:51 GMT

Who served?

DEMOCRATS:

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.

David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.

Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star,
Vietnam.

Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.

Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.

Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and
seven campaign ribbons.

Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and
Soldier's Medal.

Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, PO! W. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.

Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.

Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.

Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.

Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57

Chuck Robb: Vietnam

Howell Heflin: Silver Star

George McG overn: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.

Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.

Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953

John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.

<><><><><><><><

REPUBLICANS

Dennis Hastert: did not serve.

Tom Delay: did not serve.

Roy Blunt: did not serve.

Bill Frist: did not serve.

Mitch McConnell: did not serve.

Rick Santorum: did not serve.

Trent Lott: did not serve.

Dick Cheney: did not serve.

John Ashcroft: did not serve.

Jeb Bush: did not serve.

Karl Rove: did not serve.

Saxby Chambliss: did not serve.

Vin Weber: did not serve.

R! ichard Perle: did not serve.

Douglas Feith: did not serve.

Eliot Abrams: did not serve.

Richard Shelby: did not serve.

Jon Kyl: did not serve.

Tim Hutchison: did not serve.

Christopher Cox: did not serve.

Newt Gingrich: did not serve.

Phil Gramm: did not serve.

Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.

John M. McHugh: did not serve.

J C Watts: did not serve.

Jack Kemp: did not serve.

Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.

George Pataki: did not serve.

Spencer Abraham: did not serve.

John Engler: did not serve.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army ZZZbase.

Antonin Scalia: did not serve.

Clarence Thomas: did not serve.

< ;><><><><><><><>><>

PUNDITS &PREACHERS

Sean Hannity: did not serve.

Rush Limbaugh: did not serve

Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.

Michael Savage: did not serve.

George Will: did not serve.
..
Paul Gigot: did not serve.

Bill Bennett: did not serve.

Pat Buchanan: did not se! rve.

John Wayne: did not serve.

Bill Kristol: did not serve.

Kenneth Starr: did not serve.

Ralph Reed: did not serve.

Michael Medved: did not serve.

Charlie Daniels: did not serve.

Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:31:29 GMT

Dot:

After the results came out in 2004, I can imagine no one can figure out polls anymore. Van can quote all the polls he wants from now till next year, they don't mean a thing. You have to figure half of the people just answer the questions just to get them out of their face.

You libs are also forgetting you had a lot of conservative democrats that got elected to Congress. They don't drink the koolaid like you leftwing nutjobs do. They do seem to think about the question before them a little more then the average goofy liberal in congress. Nancy Pelosi needed their support to become Madame Speaker and she has to toe their line as well. So before you go screaming about the GOP, you better look in your own backyard and realize the democrats you voted in are not the democrats you thought you voted for.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:31:41 GMT

Lee Holmes to a degree is correct...that's why I say Pelosi is a good politician but a poor leader. Alot of those freshman came from conservative districts. And them or the GOP aren't going to sign onto bills that contaign language or actions that they are obviously not going to accept. And it damages efforts on future Dem bills that actually are reasonable. That's why these bills get killed. Pelosi and Reid has to find a middleground...even if it's only an inch.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CitizenJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:35:45 GMT

"obama what a name sounds like a terriost name . i beleive he did come from the terriost family like every one says in america ."

greg opelika alabama (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:17 PM)

Everyone in America says he came from a terrorist family? I must have missed that.

Oh, and how did you even get on this site? I wasn't aware that they had electricity in Alabama yet, much less the internets.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:35:53 GMT

greg i live near opelika and you sound as about as dumb as most of the residents look when I go into your local wal-mart.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Bob Witt in Washingon DC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:37:21 GMT

The Dems are a spinless and disappointing lot. Not able to produce one positive result except those supportive of the cheney/bush cabal. Oh that we had a leader. BTW, see David Brooks op-ed piece today in the NYT on Senator McCain.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Ted Ginney, Miami Florida — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:44:03 GMT

Shadow - It takes sixty votes in the Senate to move forwards unobstructed, and the only people responsible for falling short of that vote total on each of those bills are Republicans, not Democrats.

The usual whine from the left.

And how, pray-tell, did the Republicans get all those bills past prior to 2006? They never had 60 votes in the Senate, but yet they managed to get their work done.

Reid is a complete embarrassment. How did this fool ever get to be in charge?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

UIL, Maine — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:46:31 GMT

Who served? (long list of happy bs)

And yet, the military hates the Democrats. Go figure.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:50:03 GMT

Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.

Nice to know he wasn't on the water rescue team......

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Terry — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:50:51 GMT

So when we win in Iraq, what did we win? What did America really get out of it?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

nuanced — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:02:10 GMT

"report, titled ‘The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War,’ estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.”

I will definitely send this to my relatives who said they voted for Bush because of the $500 in taxes they would save. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:06:10 GMT

Jerry, remember it was the Repuk party that you defend that has become the bitter and divisive party. They also called people UNPATRIOTIC, I will not let you forget and why-----I BLED FOR THIS COUNTRY. YOU CAN NOT GET ANY MORE PATRIOTIC THAN THAT. No I do not mean those who never served are not PATRIOTIC. Never call me anything other than a PATRIOT.. As for goose stepping the Repuk party is just that they follow blindly a leader who claimed to be a uniter but is nothing more than a divider and a Deserter. He never fullfilled his service obligation in time of combat operations (no record of serving or not). Keep on drinking the koolaid because you obviously enjoy it.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

nuanced — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:07:54 GMT

So when we win in Iraq, what did we win? What did America really get out of it?
Terry (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:50 PM)

-- a big bill for our children and grandchildren to pay, disabled Americans, dead American, and many many dead Iraqis. But don't complain, it was high living for the neocons while it lasted.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Matt, Houston, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:12:20 GMT

That's right, Jerry, disparage Kennedy (although it was a good joke) when you can't answer to the list. In light of that list of who served, seems like calling Democrats spineless wimps is a bit disingenuous (GREAT post SW GR!). Did you serve, Jerry? I did.

Oh, and Ted Ginney, it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill that the President will sign. It takes 2/3 to over ride a veto. Where did you get your civics education? Home schooled? A religious private school? Comic books?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Matt, Houston, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:16:39 GMT

One more thing, Ted. Get their work done? You mean like worrying about trying to pass a flag burning amendment to the Consitution? Banning same sex marriage? Promoting prayer in school? Tearing down the separation of church and state? Or do you mean leaving 13 appropriations bills unpassed and undebated for the Democrats to tey and get completed after the election when they should have been done long before it?

Please explain, we're all holding our breath.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Nathan Parrott, Atlanta, Georgia — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:19:34 GMT

Democrats are not spineless, they will do whatever it takes to increase Americans' dependency on government. We saw how they acted when the republicrats simply offered us young people some liberty over our Social Security... the Dems wouldn't even come to the table.

Not only will they do anything, but they will be as duplicitous as they need to be to gain the power needed to pimp dependency. For example, in 1998 Nancy Pelosi said 'Saddam Hussien is developing WMD's and has made a mockery of the inspection process'. What changed to make GW a liar and Nancy the Speaker of the House, other than weak minds being manipulated by a liberal "media"? The only things I can think of are the inspectors were removed from Iraq and the UN's Oil for Food Program was corrupted. Do contained nations corrupt humanitarian programs designed to save their own people?

Liberals leaders know promoting envy, animosity and victim hood are easy sales that lead people to government dependence. All they need is a malleable mind and blind compassion like yours.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:38:42 GMT

Florida Independent - I'm as against pork as you are, but after six years of running the biggest spending Congress in American history, Republicans have ZERO credibility being against government pork, let alone citing it as a reason to go against the wishes of 70% of the American public to end this war.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Sean, USN Vet, Oregon — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:43:17 GMT

Lots of comments and lots of junk! I served and I was injured while I was in the Navy. I am and have always been a democrat. I know in the millitary there is a stong backing of Republicans but there is a groing number of people backing the democrats. Why? Because they are finding out that the Republican want to pour money in to the military with no direction and the democrats want to fund the military and improve the technology.

If you think that it is the democrats fault they have not passed these 40 bills you are mistaken. Check the voting records. They voted for these bills and have made an effort to end this monstrosity in Iraq, but if is being blocked by the Republican party. The fundimental reason it is not over yet is because the Democrats think for themselves and the rublicans do as they are told by the GOP. A great example of this was the impeachment of Cheney and how the republicans were told to vote for it so they could debate it and kill it. Durring the first part of the vote they were all voting aganst it till the GOP steped in and told them to vote for it then they could kill it. I a great move the democrats sent it to the judical commity to keep it alive. So the point is if you are looking for a leader, look towards the democrats if you are looking to be a sheep become a republican.

I do not agree with all the actions the democrats have taken, but it sure will be better when they are in full control.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Ted Ginney, Miami Florida — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:50:01 GMT

Oh, and Ted Ginney, it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill that the President will sign. It takes 2/3 to over ride a veto. Where did you get your civics education? Home schooled? A religious private school? Comic books?

Matt, calm down. You are getting all upset. But, one more question. How did the Republicans get all their bills past when Clinton was President? To the best of my knowledge, they didn't have the 2/3rds majority in either house, and most of their agenda got passed. Now, how in the world did that happen?

Face some facts Matt. Reid couldn't organize a two car funeral, let alone find a way to pass any of his agenda in the Senate. The man is a complete failure.

And Matt, please don't hold your breath too long. You seem to struggle with getting enough 02 to the brain as it is.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:57:26 GMT

I noticed a few things on this list of people who served and didn't serve.........

I don't see John Murtha's name.....
He was a Colonel in the Marine Corp.......
And he hates the Marine Corp..........

I don't see John Kerry's name.......
but then again he hated the Navy.........

Don't see Bill Clinton's name either......
But he didn't have sex with that woman either.......

Neither did Harry Reid.........
Because he was a Mormon?.......

Robert Byrd; Senator from West Virgina.....
Leader of his local KKK chapter.....
Never served...........

Very interesting.........

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rory, Point Pleasant, New Jersey — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:06:54 GMT

Do we need lessons in Constitutional protocol? It does not matter if the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, the Supreme Court and any other agency in Washington. The President has to sign off on these bills, they need his approval. So long as he is unwilling to do so and the Republicans not assist the Dems in overriding vetoes, nothing will change. We need to drain the swamp that has become the Oval Office.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:14:01 GMT

Nathan Parrott you're sounding like Boortz. But it's individuals like you have have to make a choice. Do you support the necon agenda of expanding government, curbing liberties, and nation building while burdening future generations with debt? That is obviously what has redefined the current Republican party. Do you support this just to continue your political bias and disagreements with Democrats or a specific politician. I think one has a far more harmful and immediate impact than the other.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:36:03 GMT

SW GR. I'm curious about this blog. I'd bet it lines up about the same. I wonder how many of them and those Republican Congressmen, support Dubya's refusal to help Vets in his most recent Veto? IICorps 68-69

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Richard, Washington State — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:37:22 GMT

Shadow: Re: 60 votes.

Yes, we have indeed moved to the other side of the mirror. A few old cliches` come to mind. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around comes around. Fight fire with fire. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bush, who has used the veto far less than Clinton did, might actually catch up before he moves on. He only needs about 30 more and given the current make-up and attitude of the majority party in congress, we could have new meaning for the phrase "comeback kid".

It'll be fun.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:42:21 GMT

Ted Kennedy served, though THE DICK (Darth Vader) Cheney "didn't feel it was a priority to serve in the military at the time." (I thought of that quote when I saw him doing his thing on Vet's Day.) Bush drove drunk more often than Kennedy, he just didn't have a fatal accident (that we know of, though maybe his rich-n-powerful daddy covered one up.) At least Kennedy didn't go AWOL.(Nice post, by the way, on all the Dems who served and REpugnants who didn't---Jerry can't even BEGIN to come up with anything other than a Kennedy joke for that one, because he has nothing, really, to say in answer, because he KNOWS it's true. And how about the post from the guy in Iraq, jerry? What's your answer to HIS QUESTION?)

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lee in CA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:47:27 GMT

"How did the Republicans get all their bills past when Clinton was President? To the best of my knowledge, they didn't have the 2/3rds majority in either house, and most of their agenda got passed. Now, how in the world did that happen? "

Bill Clinton was a non-arrogant, non-self-loving achiever who wasn't handed everything in life and excused from every screw-up, America-first president who enabled bi-partisanship.

Speaking of not getting enough O2 to the brain! Start breathing in a dry-cleaning bag, Ted. You should start thinking clearly in an hour or two.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Ron Jeffers — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:12:47 GMT

"Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy. Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats."

What an idiotic statement. Somebody needs to take a civics class. The reason so many of these bills don't pass is because Bush vetoes them and there are not enough votes to override. Pretty simple, huh? Who does the writer think they are fooling?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Travis, Louisville, Ky — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:16:09 GMT

Democratic nutjobs? Because we're so much worse than the manure elected and appointed recently around this country? Open your stupid red state voting eyes, first off Hillary is going to win and I cannot wait to rub Guiliani and company's loss in when it happens. Secondly, all I have to say is that Bush is the least approved of President in our nations history. Numbers don't lie, republicans do.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Susan, Asheville NC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:20:03 GMT

There is a temporary lull in the violence in Iraq, but that will change. We cannot win a war crime.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:29:00 GMT

Richard...comeback kid..loathed by all..arrogant...if that's the new definition, you can have it.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:35:25 GMT

SW GR MI that is a great listing you could have listed chicken hawks who found a draft free billet in the national guard. Most of those who did not serve thought those of us who did as stupid. The did not serve list is people who love ONLY what their country can do for THEM.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Nick L, Elizabethtown, KY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:09:31 GMT

For those of you that say “who cares”what they think of us? I bet when that question was being thrown around and polled like crazy back before the fraud that is Bush became President, and apparently the world at that time was swinging your way relative to that question? I clearly remember Karen Hughes and company professing how much lack of respect the world had for the United States back when it was very important...before the 2000 election.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Kris Jenkins, El Paso — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:12:02 GMT

Ron Jeffers >> What an idiotic statement. Somebody needs to take a civics class. The reason so many of these bills don't pass is because Bush vetoes them and there are not enough votes to override.<<

So Ron, here's a concept to wrap your mind around. Don't send Bush a war funding bill. No funds. No war.

Ron Jeffers >> Pretty simple, huh? Who does the writer think they are fooling? <<

Obviously, the answer is you.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

nuanced — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:15:13 GMT

So before you go screaming about the GOP, you better look in your own backyard and realize the democrats you voted in are not the democrats you thought you voted for. -- jerry/corpus christi texas

-- jerry, in spite of all your cheap shots you do have some insights. I do believe we need to concentrate on cleaning house (and senate) corporate/special-interest Democrats out as much as much as Republicans. Nice of you to encourage us improve.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

nuanced — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:26:27 GMT

Forgive me for generalizing but the Republicans in office are more concentrated in one part of the political spectrum while the Democrats with the "bigger tent" have congress people with a wider set of views. When there is an ideological vote (or when they have received their orders) the Republicans will nearly all vote the same while the Democrats will have a range of opinions and are more likely to split their vote.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Nathan P, Atlanta, Georgia — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:29:33 GMT

CJ, I don't enertain people who avoid valid satements by posing questions of their own.

Any comment on the Nancy Pelosi's stement from 1998?

Any answer to the question asking if contained nations corrupt humanitarian programs?

Any comment on the democrats being unwilling to use their superior intellect to afford us young people a smiggen of libertry over our Social Security funds?

Any examples of Democrat congresses writing legislation to make the people less dependent on government?

Perhaps you can axplain how government dependency does not take power from the people and transfer it to the poltical class?

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

George Salvattore — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:31:55 GMT

Mr. Domenico Montanaro plays by the rule of the neocons: mislead and spread lies, that will conquer the minds of the the weak and ignorants.
He quote an entire article from the neocons propaganda
repeating the well known "fact" that the democrats are
unable to get it right (meaning that they submit bills that aren't in the taste of Bush and neocons agenda), that they are antiamericans and all that bullsh** about not supporting our troops.
Who is bloking the logical solution to the gigantic crisis the country is involved: Bush people!
The democrats will not be able to pass the legislation needed until the people elect more democrats in the senate and the House.
The republican blocking good bills are the real antiamericans. They are supporting the Oil Companies, not the troops.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Nick, Elizabethtown, KY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:33:14 GMT

Jerry that's the biggest crock?? When you would compromise everything that you right wingers hold dear for the lie that is the Iraq war on the back of dead kids is most pathetic.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:41:22 GMT

TO SW GR AND MI...

I printed your Comments on who served and who did not...as my own son is headed to Iraq in May of 2008. Thanks for a very imformative piece of information.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lee Holmes — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:48:54 GMT

SW GR: More Republicans in Congress[I see that the poster applied celebrities and stacked these against congressmen], served in the military than have Democrats 13.5% to 10.5%.

www.whoserved.com

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:58:26 GMT

wooooeh, the violence moves from Iraq to First read,
I have to say that things are heating up here, possibly because this story was partly to create this dissention. But a lot of good give and take, I would say the repubs lost this thread. Of course being a dem I am in favor of the points my side made compared to the insinuations and out right nothing posts from the jerry crowd, SANDY BERGER, PAPERHANGERS, NUTJOBS, LOONY, We must be getting their goat, they start hyperventilating with words. I think it is a shame to use wounded vets to persuade the electorate this is red meat politics (no Pun intended) at its best. I also can't believe that vets who dissent over the war are somehow less important to the screaming set. You are disrespectful to a vet then you are scum.
I have noticed some new people are joining in, I hope they are not all like that one who made a comment about Obamas name, he sounds like the village idiot.
Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best in the world, if you lived in Pakistan you would be in jail right now or if you were famous, house arrest for your views, I do think they would shoot jerry though.
Nobody likes bomb throwers.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Ron Jeffers — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:12:55 GMT

Kris Jenkins writes "So Ron, here's a concept to wrap your mind around. Don't send Bush a war funding bill. No funds. No war."

Well, thank you Captain Obvious....but I believe you missed the writers point, which was: why are Congressional bills LIMITING Bush's war policy not being passed by a President who is in favor of continuing the war, AND...why are these vetoes not being overridden when there are not enough opposition votes to override? Get it????

So....either the writer is completely ignorant of the basic function of government OR is a Republican stooge trying to make it look like the opposition is not doing their job.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Dennis E., Dallas, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:28:09 GMT

Jerry, you are totally disgusting. You make repugnant look good. Ted Kennedy served. I bet you didn't.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

John B, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:51:37 GMT

Nathan P, nice bit of propaganda "liberty over our Social Security funds." First try to understand why we have Social Security to begin with. Not having that program means you are free to starve in the street after your retirement funds are lost in the stock market. It's the freedom to say you don't give a damn if someone else lives or dies in poverty because you were fortunate enough to be part of the upper crust. It means being comfortable with a poverty rate among senior citizens that is at least double what we currently experience. All of these things were reality for the generations before Social Security. It means turning your back on the Christian imperative to "do these things for the least among us", a concept of mutual assistance cherished by every major religious tradition. It means asking "Are there no poor houses?"

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Mike Weaver, Scottsdale AZ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:37 GMT

Congressional bills LIMITING Bush's war policy not being passed by a President who is in favor of continuing the war, AND...why are these vetoes not being overridden when there are not enough opposition votes to override? Get it????

I can answer that. Because you don't legislate wars. Congress approves or disapproves, and funds or does not fund the war. You want to run the day to day operations of the war, you win the White House. Seperation of powers, and all that. Get it?

Pelosi and Co. won last years elections on the promise that they would change things with respect to the war. They haven't. They are total failures. Do you get that too?

The real stooges is the Democratic party who is so disorganized that they probably couldn't get anything done with both houses of congress and the White House. The other stooges are the ones that believe the Democrats are not stooges. And you Ron, you sure look like a stooge. Probably Curly.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Richard, Washington State — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:23:25 GMT

John B, Des Moines, IA:

Why is it that when Nathan P asks for a smidgen (little tiny bit) of liberty over social security funds, you respond with an excessive broad-spectrum, all-encompassing, economically deficient, stereotypical, generalizing sermon?

Maybe you could be more gentle like "nuanced" who asks forgiveness for generalizing, then goes on to stereotype and condescend.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Lee Holmes — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:49:40 GMT

Steve Turner: Study your Congress. Bush moves to veto because of ''hooking'' bills.[or unhooking,as in locomotive cars]. The Veterans funding bill,hundreds of millions, sat as a stand-alone bill,pushed by both the GOP and Democrat Sen.Webb of Virginia,which Bush would sign in a trice. Can't have Bush looking good on this so Jack Murtha goes to Pelosi,who goes to Reid,and Pelosi ''hooks''[or ''couples'']the bill onto Murthas defense bill that contains billions in rider earmarks for more ''critical''spending[getting state and collegiate buildings named after you]. Bush vetos said bill,not due to any animosity aimed at veterans[which is no worse than it was under Clinton,or Bush I,or Reagan,or Carter],but because it is loaded with Democrat pork.[Murthas slice,to be nearly 100 million,making him the undisputed pork champeen in the House]. Murtha is then caught literally bribing stalling GOP legislators with the pork enticements with his pal Obey,who are coming across as a couple of secondrate reduxs of ''The Turk''Solottzo in order to beat back the veto with the GOP standing its ground and demanding that the vets bill be returned to its original stand-alone state.

also see:PORKBUSTERS www.porkbusters.com

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Richard, Washington State — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:20:59 GMT

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Richard, Washington State — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:24:05 GMT

Matt, Houston, TX says:

"That's right, Jerry, disparage Kennedy (although it was a good joke) when you can't answer to the list."

Matt, since the "list" as presented here is a few thousand names short on both sides of the aisle, and literally millions upon millions if you go into the general population, maybe jokes are the best response.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Nathan, ATL, GA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:33:45 GMT

John B, do you have any comments to the other things I mentioned?

I understand why Social Security is in place and I understand politicians have consistently looted those funds from the Social Security Trust.

Loose it in the stock market? You do know the options for privatizing were very narrow, we could leave them in the program, buy bonds, or approved mutual funds? Have you ever heard of diversification? Perhaps you prefer the "propoganda" of scaring people into the arms of government financial security by demonizing the private sector, which gives politicians the power of dependency? The simple fact is, the dems didn't think I should have any choice and choice is liberty.

John B. you can try to portray me as a callous uncaring individual if you like. However, I have seen how welfare programs are exploited by my own family so they could free up money to feed their own addictions. I realize welfare made it more cost effective for women to have children as single mothers in the 70's and 80's and that immasculated a generation of men. I have seen how consequences to poor decisions create a need to learn and how government programs reduce the consequences, thereby reducing the motivation to learn. I have see how the entitlement attitude fostered by government programs has made some take little pride in their work. I am not well off, but I am also not impressed with the effectiveness of government programs, so play your class warfare game with someone else.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rex in Philadelphia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:34:42 GMT

One month the death toll goes down, and some people are celebrating victory. The death toll will go back up again.
The Dems seem to be in a no win situation. They were elected to help bring an end to the war, but any effort is vetoed. And if they cut funding they will be blamed for when the death toll does go up.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rex in Philadelphia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:37:58 GMT

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Quinn Miller, Oakland, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:16:59 GMT

The biggest problem with congress is that Republicans are more interested in saving the tattered shreds of George W. Bush's legacy than they are in getting us out of the bloody mess he created. The Dems are not blameless, however, and they need to start listening less to Beltway pundits and campaign consultants and more to their own constituents.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Enough of these useless blogs about leftist scum — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:56:15 GMT

It would appear from all the quisling leftists' postings above that all is not well in Mudville where these anencephalic malformations defend themselves with their buttocks aimed at terrorists for the ultimate reception of IEDs. All being fools on the proverbial hill who give professional clowns a really bad name.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Virgil Owen, Lake Arrowhead, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:24:59 GMT

For what the Iraq war has cost us we could have bought every American with a drivers license an electric car but then George W. and that idiot we call a vice president wouldnt be able to take care of their oil buddies

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

Rafael DeJesus, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:12:21 GMT

It takes 2/3 to pass legislation. Yes the democrats control both chambers ... but the spoilers are the repugnicants and the "village idiot". Repugnicants and Bush would rather continue to shed our blood in a conflict that's been going on for ages than give the democrats and the american people a victory! Bush "the school yard bully" will continue his charade of "compassionate conservatism" (repugnant) until the end. Repugnicants are greedy, compassionless soldiers marching to the beat of a death drum ... leading this country into a third world status! Great job boys and girls, tiny soldiers!

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

CJ — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:01:53 GMT

Nathan if you expect the GOP to fix all the ills of entitlement society then keep dreaming. Both parties promot government expansion and you know it. If you are true to your cuase...vote libertarian.

Iraq/Iran: Zero for 40. Ouch.

New American Fascist — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:07:59 GMT

'It would appear from all the quisling leftists' postings ....(stupid blah blah blah)"

My - don't you know a SPECIAL word? We're all REAL impressed. Zieg Heil.