Newt Gingrich is right: This is WWIII, and the dim-bulbed, quisling leftists are the ones who must be defeated first.

At least he hasn't slapped any Capitol Policemen (yet).

When you give mullahs visas to come to the US, and and then give terrorists Geneva Convention rights, saying you're not Nansy Pelosi is not very convincing. It's like that Russian joke about which choice is better: both are worse.

or was a key note speaker at a segregationists funerals.

"hmmmm, wait that's us"

Can we demote Florida to territory status? I'm not usually for disenfranchising citizens, but come on, they are trying to bring Bob Bowman AND Katherine Harris to DC?

"11 ways to say they're not Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the kooky Democrats."

The Republicans will run commercials of Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats making pronouncements on US security matters.

The public will be shocked and dismayed by the commercials. Why? Because MSM have suppressed reporting of all of the stupid and shocking things Democrats have said in the last 6 years.

People who read blogs will not be surprised by the statements as bloggers have been faithfully reported them for the last 6 years.

Ivan:

"The "old media" and Drudge have it all wrong. Bush is not reversing course and they are not getting "Geneva Rights."
Today, the President has wagered all of his "political chips" and sided with the uniformed Combat Arms Branches instead of the JAG Chiefs.

First, whenever the President brings up that the illegal combatants are not in uniform, that is a clear sign to those of us in the military that these individuals are not covered by Geneva.

Second, he is very clear that the CIA Detention program remains alive and well. ONLY after all information is obtained will they be turned over to DOD for military trial. Then they will face a death sentence.

Third, the President directly attacks the opinion by SCOTUS.

Lastly, Congress is now up against the wall. There is now a "face" that the public will see in regards to this legislation. IF Congress does not pass legislation, these 14 detainees tied to 9/11 will not receive ultimate Justice. What member of Congress wants to argue for them?

This was indeed a brilliant maneuver by Bush and I am thankful that he is running with it."

via Real Clear Politics

What's the deal with this guy Webb from Virginia. I find it scintilating that guys that did a half ass job of military service are so gung-ho for war and decorated veterans get branded as un-patriotic (I love this country).

X-Republican
X-Marine
Doesn't want our Troops in Iraq forever like ehem..ehem.. some people.

I like this guy.

Not all Dem's are Pelosi, Gore, Clinton.

From his site..there's more but I didn't want to soak up so much space with non-neo-con logical arguments.

"For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term “MacArthurian Regency” in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq."

Dan, no one wants our troops in Iraq forever. We just don't want to have to send them back again in 10 years.

Jake, thanks for the info.
When it comes to "WOT", good news seem hard to find.
On the subject, here's an interesting piece:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=090606C

Well the good news with the "stay the course" plan they will still be there in 10 years.

"Baghdad recorded more than 1,500 violent deaths in August, according to final figures released this week by the Health Ministry. The final count was roughly the same as the figure the ministry released for July, before the U.S.-led security crackdown began in the Baghdad area."

Why we would want our troops to buffer these people killing each other right now I have no idea. Let them fight each other for 10 years we'll come back and pump out the oil when they're done. So ill-conceived to think these people wanted to live together in a democratic society. We got Saddam let's get the frick out of there. Let's pull an Israel and say Iraq is the world's problem now since we only wanted to get Saddam "the terrorist".

Given the administration's habit for telling falsehoods, I am not surprised that a lot of people don't trust the official version of 9/11.

Also, the Democrats don't have a monopoly on kooks. The Republicans nominate plenty of kooks, too.