House Dems finally get their out-of-Iraq plan off the ground.
In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[…] As described by Democrats, the legislation will require Bush to certify by July 1 and again by Oct. 1. whether the Iraqi government is making progress toward providing for the country’s security, allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending its constitution.They said if Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these so-called benchmarks, U.S. combat troops would have to begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by Sept. 1.
Otherwise, the deadlines would move up.
If Bush cannot make the required certification by July 1, troops must begin a six-month withdrawal immediately. If Bush cannot make the second certification, the same six-month timetable would apply.
In essence Bush gets his war money on the condition that we get out of Iraq by late 2008 at the latest. With the idea of pulling out of Iraq Beatles-popular with Americans the Dems are hardly going out on a limb with this. If anything the plurality to slight majority who favors immediate withdrawal will be disappointed.
If Bush vetoes the bill he won’t get any war money. The Senate GOP can always filibuster to similar effect. With public opinion violently set against the Republican position I doubt that those up for reelection in ’08 have much wind for a fight over this.
At least one Republican has plenty of wind:
Within an hour of Pelosi’s news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to ”establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable” that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
This comes close to the stupidest criticism I have ever heard. Unless America plans to stay in Iraq forever (we don’t. right, Rep. Boehner?) we will eventually “telegraph to the enemy” that we are leaving. If we follow the appropriate withdrawal procedure the Army will start packing its bags six months or more before the actual departure date, which the non-retards among our “enemies” will recognize immediately. You can’t slip 200,000 Americans and equipment out of a foreign country unnoticed.
Then there is the small matter of those who could use some advance warning. Supposedly Iraq has a sovereign government whose security will be (slightly) impacted by losing the bulk of our Army. Leaving without giving Maliki or his successor enough time to plan for the adjustment borders on criminal. Telling the Iraqi government, of course, more or less implies telling America’s enemies since the distinction often amounts to the difference between a hobby and a day job.
Boehner also declares that strategy should be set by Gen. David Petraeus and not “politicians” like Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha. Really? Think about what happened when Gen. Casey, David Petraeus’s predecessor, resisted the idea of expanding our presence in Iraq. The president fired him and swapped in a general who would do it. Despite the C-in-C title that Bush & co. repeat like a mantra, George Bush is a civilian. Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha are civilians. If he hadn’t blown his Congressional majority on corruption and demagoguery (and had even a vestigial interest in overriding his President) Boehner would also be a civilian with legitimate influence on military policy. Maybe Boehner wants to live in a country where military generals dictate strategy to the civilians; I don’t.
Any way you cut it John Boehner would serve himself better by sitting this one out.
***Update***
On reflection, this ought to be called the Pulling the GOP’s Nuts Out Of The Fire bill. Everybody knows that staying in Iraq will break the GOP’s back in ’08. Most congresscritters, especially Republicans, are desperate for a way out but can’t stand the thought of losing face.
Voila – let the Dems force us out of Iraq. It will cauterize the GOP’s gaping wound just in time for the ’08 elections and let the same GOPers who refused to exercise even the most minimal oversight when the war was underway blame the Dems for losing Iraq. It’s a two-fer.
Further, the Dems will own whatever bad things inevitably come from pulling out of Iraq. If his party doesn’t own the fallout then the President has less of a reason to open diplomatic channels with Iraq neighbors Iran and Syria. Say that the region does fall into chaos. Now it’s the fault of Congress who didn’t let the president send in eleventy jillion fresh boots to force the Sadrists to make nice with the Sunnis and then shoot their way into Tehran and tear down the statue of Hitler. It could have happened!
It seems appropriate to describe this bill as a politically dumb and policy smart. If it works I have a hard time not seeing the Dems pay a significant price for doing the right thing.
****Update 2***
Or the bill could be more meaningless posturing. Generalissimo Kos Subcomandante Kagro X is skeptical.
John Cole
Tom Tancredo would argue that you can slip 2 million Mexicans into a country unnnoticed, so why not try.
demimondian
Hey, John, that’s a great idea — fix America’s illegal immigrant “problem”, avoid “embolderenating the enemy”, *and* make a grand policy statement in one fell surge.
Dude! When does it start?
cleek
i think the reasoning is something like: by the time we’re able to leave, there won’t be any significant enemy left; we’ll have defeated it. in other words: the job, in Boehner’s eyes, is to get Iraq to the point where it doesn’t matter if we tell anyone we’re leaving or not.
Enlightened Layperson
I agree with Cleek. Boehner’s position is that we should stay in Iraq until we have defeated the enemy. Or until our army breaks down under the strain, whichever happens first.
dreggas
Boehner…Boner…same thing…
Pb
Thanks to Boehner’s genius, I’ve got a wonderful plan for a timetable that will instantly stabilize Iraq and eventually defeat the enemy. We announce a timetable that states that we’ll be totally leaving Iraq in 100 years time. Then, the enemy will hunker down and try to wait us out. Therefore, Iraq will suddenly be stable and secure for 100 years, and by the time the deadline comes around, all the enemies we were fighting originally will be dead! And all we have to do is keep our troops there for 100 years–brilliant!
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Well, if our original plan was to colonize Iraq with a bunch of Texans, I guess it would kinda make sense to let 2 million Mexicans sneak in across the Saudi border. The logistics of it are a bitch, but here’s how I guess it’ll go:
a) All Iraqis wanting to flee their country as refugees receive asylum in Texas. That should take care of at least 80% of the national population at this point.
b) All Texans wanting to flee the Democratic Congressional and majority and impending Presidency can receive armaments and careers in our newest colony, Iraq. With most of the Iraqis in Texas, Texans won’t like it there anymore, so why not move to Iraq and take over the abandoned homesteads?
c) All Mexicans captured trying to enter America are shipped to Kuwait, and given maps and instructions on how to get to Iraq. If nothing else, this will prevent the Texans from getting homesick. It will also ensure that Tom Tancredo gets abducted and sent to the Hague for crimes against humanity. So we’ll be rid of him finally, too.
ThymeZone
Pb, Good job. Not only funny, but a strategery that our administration might actually adopt.
In fact, listening to Bush talk this week, I am not sure that this isn’t their real strategery.
Otto Man
How long before Richard 23 comes back to complain that he hasn’t heard any Iraq plan from the Democrats?
DoubtingThomas
Kudos to somebody for doing the right thing… When was the last time we saw any politician do the right thing? It’s about friggin’ time!
jake
Of course Boneher doesn’t want to telegraph anything to the enemy. He prefers to IM them, like his pal Foley.
To say nothing of the “enemies” who will already know well before then because they’ve been helping the soldiers pack. This makes me wonder how exactly does Johnny think the soldiers will leave? Teleporter? Thinking happy thoughts and drifting away on a breeze? Clicking their god damned ruby slippers?
Of course I doubt he’s thought that far in advance. It’s all down to reflex now. Democrats say something about the war = NO! You CAN’T! The enemy will WIN!
Perhaps some sort of reverse psychology could be employed. Pelosi could say “We want the troops to stay in Iraq 4 Eva,” and knee jerks like JB will start calling to bring them home immediately.
Bubblegum Tate
There’s the flaw in your logic. The enemy is, at best, borderline retarded. After all, they’re so fucking dumb, they didn’t realize their phone calls and financial transactions were being watched until their buddies at the NYT told them, remember?
Keith
You haven’t seen the TV version of “Blazing Saddles” when the bad guys roll into Rock Ridge? We just need to rig up the soldier cutouts to have moveable hands that give out candy.
Pb
JohnTim F. gets it wrong, but that’s ok, people here do it to him all the time…jg
That’s because its not a criticism, its a dismissal. It works just fine in that capacity.
Tsulagi
Even if any legislation concerning Iraq deployment were to pass, and Bush’s signature was on it, I don’t see much affect for the remainder of his term. Remember who is The Deciding Farter in the Oval Office. The champion of democracy. The one who rules through signing statements. Is he over 1,000 of those yet?
chopper
i think the dynamics of this issue will vary b/w the house and senate. but the GOP in the house is gonna have a split on this thing. members of the house are beholden first and foremost to their own district, so a hardcore gooper from a hardcore red district will vote against this bill to save their own electoral ass, despite the possibilty of a bloodbath for the party in ’08. but someone from a more moderate area is gonna have to decide which is more important, their ass or their party.
given the GOP’s maniacal devotion to party politics it’s gonna be interesting to see this one pan out.
Richard 23
So what’s the Democrat party’s plan? I haven’t heard one. Just kidding, Otto Dude!
But I need a translation. I don’t get this bit:
Is that a reference to the Fab Four? Or is there an Iraqi version of Beatlemania? Is this Balloon Juice’s “I buried Paul” moment? What does this sentence mean?
I agree with Tim’s basic assessment though. The Dems have long been blamed for losing Vietnam by cutting funding. We would have won if not for the anti-war sentiment in the country (emboldening the enemy) and the eventual cut and run from Vietnam before we were able to complete the job.
If the Democrat party succeeds in forcing the President to cut and run, effectively accepting defeat, you can expect that to play a large part in the GOP strategy for a comeback in 2008. Poking the sleeping bear that is the conservative base (who slept through the 2006 elections) will likely harm the Democrats more than it helps them.
jg
Say what?
Richard 23
Now that’s funny!
cleek
What does this sentence mean?
it means pulling out is as popular with Americans as the Beatles were.
Tulkinghorn
That is one of those subliminable messages.
Pb
Yes, it’s all in the emphasis–it’s “Beatles-popular” with Americans, as in “Beatles-level popular”. Whereas the escalation is Cheney-detested with Americans, right up there with being shot in the face.
Punchy
I say we rename Iraq “America”. Then, all the Mexicans will really enter Iraq thinking it’s the U.S. (it’s all desert…who can tell?) Shortly after crossing over, we hand them a helmet and a rifle and…BLAM! Military size prob fixed, morale fixed, plenty of soliders, and every solider gets damn good burritos.
jg
So the republs are mad that the dems are putting conditions on a bill that the repubs can’t vote down but isn’t that what they’ve been doing since Bush decided to leave the war out of the annual budget and instead pay for it using bills in congress that can’t be voted down and which naturally contain conditions dems oppose?
jg
….and every Iraqi gets a well maintained lawn.
Randolph Fritz
“…politically dumb and policy smart…”
The real magnitude of the strategic failure will hit home once the pullout gets going–overland and through hostile territory. Call it Anabasis; I think it’s going to be rough. The country is very unhappy with the number of dead soldiers and the expense, so the Democrats have a lot of support, but they’re going to have to work very hard to make sure all the blame falls where it belongs.
annie's granny
This is what happens when you don’t teach sex-ed in schools.
The Other Steve
It’s politically stupid. I say come up with a plan that further embarasses the Republicans.
Perhaps a requirement that the President gives weekly speeches on the progress of this mighty war, and submit a map to congress showing what area of the country we have firm control of, and what progress we’ve made this past week to control the uncontrolled areas.
28 Percent
And once again Democrats prove that they can’t come up with a plan for Iraq that President Bush could ever possible take seriously.
Better luck next time!
Punchy
I think TOS is on to something. Let’s extend this. We force the Pres to read off all the names of the dead-but-not-wasted soliders every Friday, then read the ones who are both dead and wasted, and then he’s allowed to name some gay ex-soliders he can just catagorize as “wasted”.
Another option is to force him to shake hands with at least 3 happy, grateful, excited-about-the-future native Iraqis a week. Imagine the screening process that would entail. He must congratulate them on this great progress he alludes to nearly every day, and then listen intently for the “Thank you so much President Bush for all you’ve done for us!” that the Iraqi will be required to utter, sans sarcasm and/or vomiting.
demimondian
I don’t see any reason to humiliate the President. I do, however, see one of the benchmarks should be clear evidence that at least 60% of the population of the city of Baghdad are paying taxes only to the central government.
Richard Bottoms
Now that’s funny. In a 3200 dead soldiers kind of way.
Pb
Do they have to be different ones every week? Get the Iraqi Information Minister out there, along with the Iraq: the Model guys, assuming they’re all actually still in Iraq.
RSA
It is obviously a veiled reference to John Lennon’s claim that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Pulling of Iraq. . . Jesus. . . pulling out of Iraq. . . Jesus. Well, someone else will have to judge.
mrmobi
Nice try, Richard, but no sale.
While I have no doubt that that is how the Party of Torture will play it if it happens, you are missing a very important truth in all of this.
Most Americans (over two-thirds, I believe) understand that we have already lost. (see any number of conservative Republicans, i.e., Bill Buckley, William Odoms, etc.) They also understand that the names of a LOT of the 57,000 or so on the Viet Nam Memorial wall are guys who got killed after we knew there was no chance of success.
Americans may be slow to turn on an incompetent and corrupt administration, but once they do, that administration and that party had better start paying attention.
One more thing. Whatever the political consequences, getting out now is the right thing to do.
jg
To see if that information will be ignored just as it was in Vietnam?
dreggas
Oh I see 3200 or so plus the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s, actually that would only start the list of reasons to humiliate him.
Zombie Santa Claus
!
Doesn’t matter. It’s the right thing to do if it saves the lives of American troops. If the American people are too stupid to see through the GOP’s bullshit this time around, and they install McCain or Romney or one of those other dingbats in the White House in ’08 because the Democratic Congress ended the war 5000 casualties sooner than it otherwise would have ended, then the American people will have no one but themselves to blame for the 2011 invasion of Iran. Sooner or later, the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and the Next Fucking Stupid War will ooze into our collective conscience, right-wing bullshittery and media manipulation notwithstanding. Meanwhile, we end the fire currently blazing in our house; we don’t sit around and talk about how wonderful it is that if this one keeps going there won’t be any fuel for the next one.
ThymeZone
Jesus My Yard Man says that pulling out of Iraq is definitely more popular.
When he told me this, I just said, Oh, Jesus.
Zifnab
Is what I think you were trying to say. But, I don’t see how doing the right thing is going to hurt the Democrats any more than doing the right thing hurt Nixon or Ford when they finally pulled us out of Vietnam. Doing the right thing didn’t hurt Clinton in Kosavo. Doing the right thing only hurt Bush I in Iraq the first time because his own base turned on him – and fortunately, Dems don’t have that particular base to worry about. Doing the right thing wins you 40 years in Congress.
Tim F.
Well it can’t be both veiled and obvious, now can it?
There’s no problem coming up with popularity metaphors for the president – syphillis. Plane crashes. Traffic. Coming up with something that everybody likes is a bit harder.
Punchy
So I read the MSNBC headline about Bush going to Latin America “to counter Chavez”….and I ask….
Does the Advance Bush Team People have ANY idea just how hated this man is down there? He may be more popular in France than he is in Latin America. Wow. Just wow.
Zombie Santa Claus
True. Even Christmas is only supported by 51.5% of the electorate.
jg
Well maybe if you did your job we adults would enjoy the day a little more. Going into debt to buy gifts for yapping little kids, bites. How did you talk us into doing your job anyway?
Zombie Santa Claus
Blackmail pics. The adult version of the “naughty and nice” list.
Bubblegum Tate
I’d like to set the record straight once and for all: I thought the cop was a prostitute.
RSA
D’oh! So much for trying to fancy up my dumbass comments. As for something everyone likes–well, I’d suggest pie, but I suspect that BJ commenters’ appreciation for it is only ironic. Myself, I truly love pie.
jg
For the last freakin’ time, SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS 18!!!
Teak111
Hmmmmm, couldn’t all this wait until after nov 2008. I mean Boner’s comments aside, why hand the repugs a tournacit when the meansure can’t get past a filabuster in the Senate. Not mention it opens dems up for attacks on the “not supporting the troops” flank. Lastly, of we leave and iraq turns into a blood bath, Dems get blamed. I saw aim for a Dem whitehouse in 08, alone with a possible dem Congress, then you can make to real progress with Iraq as all the horse will be pulling in the same direction. Not too mention, what does withdrawal mean for the super bases we have there and would like to keep there. I think these dems are trying to relive the 60s. We need a smarter approach, one that involves the UN, EU, and Arab states pulling together and a Dem President in 08 can accomplish this. It will be like when Reagan freed the hostages as his first act as President. Because as a dem, I’m not sure withdrawal is the correct moral action. Yes ending the war is Beatles-popular, but how its ended in another story.
dreggas
Marie Calenders Pies MMMMMMMMMM or homemade either way they are just as good as homemade.
jnfr
Parfaits! Everybody loves parfaits.
Richard 23
Yeah maybe. But they still don’t like it. If the GOP can successfully scapegoat the Democrat party for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the Dems will be responsible for America’s loss and their own. It could happen. The GOP is good at this stuff. When they’re on their game.
This President doesn’t govern by polls.
Tell that to yourself when there’s another GOP President and GOP majority and more constructionists on the Supreme Court. It will make you feel “principled” as you cry in your beer.
I think Teak111 makes some good points for a leftist. You guys should pay him some heed.
Whoever can be blamed for losing the war and the resulting bloodbath after the pull out, will be. If the Dems can be painted as guaranteeing that we lost when there was still a glimmer of a chance, they will be, justified or not.
I don’t know if it will do them any good or if they would be willing to pull it off, but if the Dems really want to persue this strategy, they need to somehow convince that we have already won — declare victory and come home. If the GOP can convince Americans that the job isn’t done and the Dems are pulling us out prematurely (ie, surrender, defeat) then they will benefit.
Framing the issue to their benefit is what the GOP does best.
IMHO.
Richard 23
And you chose The Beatles? Tone deaf, long haired, drug addled, guru loving Euro punks? The only one with any talent at all was Ringo. And only just. “I’d like to be…under the sea….”
Maybe you should have used a Wings reference. Everybody loved Paul McCartney when he had a good backup band. The Wings were great! So much better than that Marxist, John Lenin.
Try harder next time.
dreggas
Stated original goals of the Iraq invasion:
1. Find and remove WMD’s…..check (none there)
2. Remove Saddam Hussein and his sons…..check (all dead).
3. Put in a “democratic” government…..check (purple fingers).
We’ve accomplished the missions now let’s get the fuck out. What more needs to be said? The Iraqi’s will either stand up for themselves or continue to simultaneously rely on the U.S. presence and blame the U.S. presence for everything.
We did not go there, nor has was it part of the actual “mission” to prop up a new regime. They can do that themselves. As for us, it’s time to go, we won, we won’t win in a civil war that isn’t ours.
fester
Tim — I have to disagree that this proposal is policy smart, politically dumb for a couple of reasons. The first is from the same principal of taking a derivative of an equation in Calc 1 — ignore the constants as they are constants and you are interested in changing behaviors. The Republicans will, no matter what, build a narrative of Democratic weakness and lack of will. That narrative has been building for the past couple of years wrt Iraq, note the ’emboldening the enemy’ talk, note Boehner’s framework that you quoted above, note the entire Bush-Cheney 04 Campaign.
They will do this if US troops are in Iraq and taking the same level of casualties as they are right now in 2066 — The Dems are being defeatists, they won’t approve another corps, and they won’t allow us to commit disciplinary atrocities against the supporting population etc. They will do this if the Alien Space Bats came and safely removed every US soldier, marine, airman, diplomat, and merc from Iraq next week, as everyone knows Alien Space Bats are notorious science believing liberals
The stabbed in the back/lack of will narrative will occur no matter what. So let’s acknowledge it will occur, and move on to wargaming the scenarios out.
1) The House passes a version that can get 51 votes in the Senate. Odds are the bill will pass 240-195 with 95% party loyalty on both sides of the aisle. High level of loyalty means a very clear and decisive differentiation between the two parties, with the Democrats being responsible “fully funding redeployment [I prefer Murtha’s terminology over Lee’s]” and on the overwhelmingly popular side of the policy divide. Goes to the Senate and one of two scenarios occur
A) A passable but non-cloturable majority consistently votes for it — 90%+ Dem loyalty, 20% GOP Defectors [Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Warner, potentially Sununu, are the easy ones to name] and the Senate GOP with 21 seats to defend in November 2008 OWN the war.
B) Water down some issues, loosen up some timelines and get 61 votes and send to the President. The Dems got something done
c) Bush vetos/signing statement the bill — goes back to the house and senate for override and places the GOP in pure hell as they have to go on record again and either break with their party or voluntarily grab a 500lb rock and jump into the deep end with it tied to their feet.
And if the House GOP breaks ranks and helps advances a bill 280 to 155 the pressure on the Senate to pass the bill gets even higher.
So moving forward — we either get the Republicans owning the war with the Democrats throwing anchors at them as obstructing progress on the KEY issue that the Dems were elected to deal with in 2006, GOP presidential candidates being hounded every day on what they think about the maneuvering, and some of them actually having to vote on these issues, a pleased and content Democratic activist base and the potential of good policy.
In that scenario, Dem gains can look pretty damn good in 2008 if the Senate Republicans block the proposal from going forward, and from there the institutional inertia of power can really start taking effect — and that is a worry we’ll deal with once it actually arrives.
Richard 23
Well, it would have to be said over and over until America believes it and isn’t distracted by “cut and run” and “surrender” charges. The Dems need to make “we won” their meme and sell it. They need to immunize themselves from GOP scapegoating.
If they can’t do that, they run a huge political risk. And right before the 2008 election. Don’t you think?
As it is they’re pretty vulnerable to being painted as being the ones who tied the President’s hands and lost the war. I guarantee it. I think Dems are in a pickle unless they’re able to “catapult the propaganda.”
demimondian
It’s good to see that the -concern trolls- Republican-Americans have the best interests of the “Democrat” party at heart.
No, I’m serious. I really appreciate Richard’s thoughts on this matter. Fortunately for the real Americans among us, the current generation of yellow elephants is every bit as cowardly as they appear, and can’t imagine an America in which people make their own decisions.
dreggas
Unless you have been living under a rock (or somewhere in the deep south or midwest) it should be pretty obvious that Americans are not buying the surrender or cut and run crap when everyone is on pretty much the same page in calling for us to get out. That is save for the dead enders who still support an admin in its last throes.
Gex
In other words, keep running the war the way they have been: half-assed. It’s not like they have to do anything different for this to be the case. It’s too easy.
Jay C
Uhh, Tim: hate to have to clue you in bud, but “Staying in Iraq forever” (or something close to it) was almost certainly part of the Administration’s original plans. While they have been at great pains to obfuscate the issue, the end-game plan for OIF seems always to have included a few permanent installations in-country: in Kurdistan as a thank-you gesture for years of support, a navy base at Basra to keep the tanker traffic safe, the odd brigade here-and-there around Baghdad: and all with the hearty approval of the grateful-to-be-liberated Iraqis and their new “democratic” government.
Of course, given the Bush Administration’s criminally-negligent mismanagement of the occupation, this utopian scenario has had to modified somewhat. Still, it will be interesting to see if the Deciderer-in-Chief and or/his stooges will finally level with the American people about the permanent-base issue (or anything else about the Iraqi cl*st*rf*ck other than whiny excuses and blame-shifting) – but I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Richard 23
Well, uh, golly gee, I was only trying to help. I could’ve guessed that the only thanks I would get would be rage-filled invective from the so-called “reality based” community. Don’t worry, I won’t try to be civil and bipartisan anymore.
As David Broder is certainly aware, it’s a thankless task. Sigh.
mrmobi
Yeah Richard, you guys do pretty well at that, or have in the past. What you haven’t done is succeed at what you defined yourselves as a “cakewalk.” Or any kind of governmental oversight. Or simple competence.
We Democrats may not be all that good a framing the debate, but whomever the Party of Torture picks for 2008 will have the Iraq catastrofuck and its’ long-lasting effects hung around his neck like an anchor.
Even the dumbest American understands that Iraq is the neocons war. I hope you guys enjoy the woodshed for the next 12 years.
As far as Teak111, point well taken, hoping for a Democratic White House and Congress is a good thing, but not at the expense of thousands more wasted lives. Wrong is wrong, we may lose, but we have to fight the good fight, or we’re no better than the average Party of Torture member. Republicans don’t care what happens in Iraq, only who gets blamed. Do you want to be that kind of person?
Otto Man
Yeah, that’s much too obvious not to be a spoof.
demimondian
Oh, don’t stop being bipartisan, Richard. It’s so…special…to watch you struggle with your inner yellow elephant. Beside, I can’t tell you how much it means to me to have the approval of the party of torture, political imprisonment, Katrina drownings, Foleygate, Haggard, Robertson, Abramoff, CNMA, and Holy Joe means to me.
Richard 23
It’s much too obvious that you’re some kind of obsessed weirdo. Clean out your bong and try again.
OK, I’ll try to be more patient with you raving moonbats. But is frustrating. It’s so much easier to just call you what you are, leftist wackjobs.
demimondian
Oh, thank you, Richard. Like I said, I have no words to express how much the approval of the members of the party of Schiavo’s retention on life support, Eric Hill, and Snowflake Babies, and Operation Rescue means to me.
Punchy
It does? You mean by adding even more troops and their requisite bases?
Richard 23
Say it again, demi. I didn’t quite catch that.
Perhaps a semitone more shrill.
Richard 23
Make fun of snowflake babies all you want, but I think Sam Brownback will put you to shame.
demimondian
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Richard. Why don’t you go play in traffic? Failing that, why don’t you contribute to a community which will truly value your input?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
That website is awesome. I’m going to go after those motherfuckers every chance I get.
Rome Again
2 points!
Andrew
Snowflake babies? What the fuck was Rumsfeld mailing around the Pentagon? Are there a bunch of suspiciously preggers NCOs?
Jimmmm
Richard 23 musta stayed for second helpings when the GOP had stupid on the menu.
And can we please put to rest the ridiculous assertion that [blank] action will give the terrorists a timetable? They already have one: 1/21/09
Tsulagi
LOL, it is. It’s like a blog run by thawed out snowflake babies now crying for daddy Brownback.
Richard 23
Hey, thanks for the tip, demi!
Zifnab
“Make fun of snowflake babies all you want, but I think Sam Brownback will put you to shame.”
I think Sam Brownback put himself to shame about half way between his “Would you kill a baby bald eagle egg” and “My argument is based on the artwork of a 3rd grader” rhetoric.
28 Percent
Whew thank you Richard, I was worried when I read your earlier posts but I see now that you are not a RINO even though you were making me think that you were.
Be strong and keep staying a TRUE GENTLEMAN and riseing up above they’re hate!
Richard 23
I am honored, sir, or m’am. Thanks for that.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Hey! FDR was a third grader at one point, and so was Abraham Lincoln. George Washington may not have graduated the 3rd grade, but he was 8 at one point and that’s almost as good. As for bald eagles, one of them played a prominent role on “The Muppet Show.” So clearly, these are some powerful icons Brownback’s working with, here.