Mickey

He doesn't go quail hunting with Dick Cheney so I like his odds of out living Scalia.

The ticking happens before the bomb goes off, not after.

That could be his goal but another issue that certainly plays into it is fundraising. She scares the bejeezus out of the far right. Send us money to fight the blonde menace or she will eat your children. A woman. A career professional. A Clinton. A femminist. A former hippie. A New York Yankee. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH w-e-a-r-e-g-o-i-n-g-t-o-d-i-e.

Again, posting columns, stories, book excerpts, poll results, etc, etc, is not exactly a new thing around here. What it does or can do at least is to stimulate discussion between you and others on the issues raised. See, you post a response along the lines of "I think Buckley is wrong because....." or "I think Buckley is right because..." And them someone, oh say me for example, responds with something along the lines of "Good point bib, but I think such and such..." Of course, another response could be to just ignore it which is fine. The responses I think he is complaining about, and I agree, are of the "you suk" variety. You are among the least likely to go that route so that isn't directed at you. I hate your guts for completely unrelated reasons.

Here is how you defend them: Rush the QB because their line still stinks so bad that they could have God at Wideout and still never get him the ball.

I have my doubts about Bush. Guys who survive on speed in college often struggle in the pros where everyone is a step faster.

Two million for a guy who can't play would be a bigger waste.

Whatever it takes man, whatever it takes.

We need the money more to improve the lines on both sides of the ball. We had two great receivers last year and it got us nowhere because of the disaster we have up front. I hate losing Moulds, absolutely hate it but it is a regrettable necessity. We aren't goint to replace him with anyone expensive or high profile. We don't need to. We have Evans, we have Parrish, we'll just have to make do on the third and fourth guys. If we get what we need up front, we won't need 4 pro bowlers at wide out. One will do.

Well, they did set out the percentages of those polled on their first, second and third tours of duty. The also gave numbers for different branches, reserves, NG, Marines, etc. I don't know if that answers your question. We can analyze the poll to death but since we weren't present for every interview, we can never determine for certain its absolute accuracy. Rather than debate what we don't know, ie, all the details of this poll's methodology and execution, lets discuss what the results mean in terms of policy concerns, with the caveat that we are assuming, for the basis of argument, that it is realtively accurate. If it turns out it is not, fine, we can dump our opinions and wait for a better poll. Not that I object to pointing out any obvious flaws in the poll, I just hope that isn't the only thing we discuss, ie, how to discredit the poll.

Cough up the 19.99 for the executive summary. They do have some numbers broken down based on branch of service and there were marked differences between the guard and marines and so forth. It isn't gospel truth but that is what margins of error are for. When you have numbers that one sided, on some issues anyway, it is more likely to be an accurate indicator of the general viewpoints being expressed even if the precise number itslef is hazy. I'll tell you one thing, those Jesuits, the brothers, don't mess around. They are very strict academicians.

His gratuitous personal attack on me is my fault. Makes sense. Back to the thread. I have been critical of democrats on plenty of occasions but that doesn't stop others from labeling me a partisan. Certainly, there have been many conservatives here occasionally critical of Bush. Often it is because of his views on social issues where some of them are more liberal and I see that as an indication of objectivity. Others however are only critical of him for not being far enough to the right and I don't see that kind of crticism as very significant. When he cut taxes, he didn't cut them enough, or, he should be bombing Iran, or, and this one pops up quite a bit, disagreeing with him that this should be a war on Islam, not just a war on terrorist muslims. I don't think you can fairly call yourself non-partisan based on being critical of Bush for him not being partisan enough.

LeMoyne College, a Jesuit college located right here in Syracuse, in combination with Zogby International, just finished and released a comprehensive poll of the troops in Iraq. I believe it may be one of the only polls of its kind taken since the war started. For discussion purposes: What the Troops Think Interestingly, the surveys were conducted face to face and in Iraq. Kudos to the pollsters for being willing to go where the troops are to hear them out. They found that "...26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more." With numbers like that, you have to worry about fatigue and the burden being born by the same people repeatedly. 29% want us to leave immediately. Another 21% in the next six months. I fear that means that 51% are going to be disappointed because I don't see us being anywhere near getting out by August. 53% want us to double the numbers of troops and the number of bombing missions. They too will be disappointed I fear. I confess that I have no idea what bombing missions they are talking about, I didn't think there were many targets for aerial bombing that we can regularly identify but I guess there must be. I pictured an insurgency that has its forces interlaced with everyday Iraqi's so that you don't often get a chance to bomb them and only them. Apart from that though, I don't see us doubling troop strength for two reason: A. not enough troops and B. too politically unpopular.

You have to understand though that for her, "personal satisfaction" means something entirely different than one would assume it means for others.

His hair. He has really good hair. Seriously, I think he is genuinely loyal to his people. He is standing behind Rove even though that meant going back on his word about firing anyone who had anything to do with the Plame thing. I also think that he is probably a lot less callous than he is portrayed as when it comes to minorities whether you are talking about the poor, blacks, homosexuals, whatever. I also don't think he is a sexist at all though some might see his stance on abortion to represent a paternal view, I think it is more based on his religious views. He certainly respects women and their professional abilities. I also admire his habit of trying to make light of difficult situations with humor though it may lead to some embarassing moments here and there, I would rather have that than a sourpuss. His sense of humor isn't exactly at the JFK level but certainly way above people like Nixon and Gore. I think his committment to his faith is genuine, not a means to an end.

I heard he has a Hillary doll and when he is alone, dunks her pigtails into an ink well.

That is the tactic around here, attack credibility rather than positions. I used to rail against it but after awhile, it became too tiresome to just sit there and take it. I try not to start a thread that way but once someone starts in on it, I no longer shy away from giving it right back. I don't really like joining the mudfight but what can you do? Carrying a knife to a gun fight just isn't going to work. So, you adapt.

You could mock just about every article, column, story, etc that has ever been posted here, "look, GWB said something", "look, Chalabi said something". He didn't just "say something". He made an arguement that we have failed to obtain our objectives because the amount of troops, 130,000, were unable to control sectarian violence and further, that until we realize that, the situation isn't going to get any better. It is not exactly unusual for the opinions of columnists to be posted for discussion around here, to stimulate debate. I, sarcastically, emphasized his conservative credentials trying to make the point that his opinion can't be deligitimized or dismissed off-hand as partisan, Sheehanesque babble as would certainly been the case if I posted identical opinions from other sources. Maybe that makes me unique around here, using sarcasm and all.

I wasn't taking that 5% as a big deal bib. Whatever the amount of violence is, whether its a lot or a little, whether it is being done by a majority or minority, isn't the key factor. The primary issue is whether the amount of violence is enough to keep the government from governing. I think you are saying close to the same thing and you are also offering an explanation as to why the violence is what it is. The people of Iraq are not going to support or defend a government that can't keep the lights on and the mosques safe. The government just won't survive if the violence is beyond a certain level. What the level is and how you quantify it is pretty difficult to determine. It is safe to say though that what is going on now is "too much". Three + years and it is still too much for the government there to control and, without us, survive. Thus we stay.

Lunch pail my foot. We had plenty of highly paid show boats and prima donnas. Bruce, Andre, Thurman, Talley, Odoms, Biscuit, Kelly, they could all be real jerks when the mood struck them. Apart from that though, they could all flat out play. Even more, they were miserable #%#$%'s when it came to losing. They hated, hated, hated, hated, hated losing. That is what we need, guys who, as much as they love the money, love winning more. Guys who get foaming at the mouth mean and nasty at the idea of losing a game. Guys who care. Polar opposites of Mike Williams. That is, I think, what Marv means by "character". He isn't talking about nice guys who won't steal your wallet out of your locker and never miss mass. He is talking about guys with grit. Players who take the game and winning very seriously.

I don't think there is less violence than there appears to be, that was bib's point. Mine is that whatever the level, the question is whether it is enough to make the country ungovernable. That is certainly the case now and if it were not so, if the government could govern and survive on its own, we would be gone already. There is no bright line on that determination but the continued presence of our troops is not just for fun. They are needed and the reason they are needed is that the violence is beyond the government's ability to effectively or at least acceptably control. Thanks for the extra information from your friends. It is going to take a lot more work and a serious change in tactics but that won't happen if the people in charge can't admit that its broke and needs fixing. The Bush administration is calling the shots and the only people they are ever going to listen to are their own fellow republicans and conservatives. It doesn't matter what Hillary or Schumer says, they aren't in charge. The people I want to hear from are the so-called moderate republicans. If they don't find some gumption, it is going to be more and more of this "stay the course" and "we'll stand down as they stand up" stuff which doesn't appear to be working. *Edit: Here is a link about just how violent the sectarian violence over the last week has been, 1,300 dead: Violence in Iraq

What was the situation left to Bush by Clinton or even to Clinton by Bush I?

Would China really buy any of that?

Reminds me of the 300 pound guy who smoked cigarettes for 42 years despite the constant pleading of his doctor to lose some weight and kick the habit. His doc went to see him at the hospital after his inevitable heart attack. The fat guy says "okay, genius, now what?". Whether or not I do or do not have a brilliant plan that will succeed despite the mistakes of the last three years doesn't effect whether or not mistakes were in fact made or whether our policies have indeed failed. There is a whole new thread on "what to do in Iraq" where I and many others posted suggestions for discussion. If you really want to know, check them out.

I've never felt that way about Buckley but even if the left does think of them that way, they are still useful in trying to get past the delegitimizing of a viewpoint based, not on the merits, but on the source and hopefully get to a discussion on the issues with someone from the right. They view them as credible or at least can't dismiss them outright as liberal lunatics. Who would be better to try and get them to look at the idea without bringing in their own bias pre-empting an honest look? Howard Dean said some similar things 3 years ago, what would have been the reaction if I posted those long ago statements by him which have proved so remarkably accurate? I'm thinking it would have been along the lines of or . So I gave Buckley a try.