OK, here's some NHS "success stories"
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110054/Starved-death-NHS-hospital-Damning-inquiry-highlights-case-patient-left-food-26-days.html">ht
tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110054/Starved-death-NHS-hospital-Damning-inquiry-highlights-case-patient-left-food-26-days.html</a>
Britain shamed by NHS death ratesWaiting lists and shortage of doctors blamed for grim mortality figures
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs</a>
UK's system killed 17,000 Britons
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270305/-1/searchxml">http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270305/-1/searchxm
l</a>
Dad Dies After Hospital A&E Wait
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/2008124151
95509">http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/200812
415195509</a>


How often are incidents like this happening ?
How often are people in the US dieing because they cant even get in ?

Which is the lesser of two evils ?

>> ^qruel:
<IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/videosift/i/emoticon/smilecute.gif">yo mharvey42 get with the program, this isn't youtube. Feel free to disagree but how about putting some meat on your arguement instead of shit ass generalities. VS allows tons of text and hyperlinks so go knock yourself out with googlefu to prove your point.


OK, here's some NHS "success stories"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110054/Starved-death-NHS-hospital-Damning-inquiry-highlights-case-patient-left-food-26-days.html
Britain shamed by NHS death ratesWaiting lists and shortage of doctors blamed for grim mortality figures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs
UK's system killed 17,000 Britons
http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270305/-1/searchxml
Dad Dies After Hospital A&E Wait
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dad-Stewart-Fleming-Dies-After-Six-Hour-Wait-In-Kent-Hospital-Accident-And-Emergency/Article/200812415195509

Another government success story. How are you going to save us next!

Evened that up for you legacy0100... such lucid observations don't deserve to be in the negative.

Singapore and Korea have greatly benefited from Western imperialism (English and American). They inherited our knowledge to build sustainable economies around our economic theory and sound legislative backgrounds. As for Saudi-Arabia, US geologists first discovered the oil under their feet in the 1930s but Americans waited at least 20 years to really start pumping it out.

It is not to say that Westeners are totally responsible for these success stories, but we sure as hell had a hand in getting them started. As for Africa, what most upsets me is that many people fell guilty at their failure. Africa has been offered a multitude of opportunities for growth and stability but have wasted them all away.

Ultimately, their fate lies in their hands. We should stop all aid to Africa.


>> ^legacy0100:
Africa needs to start from basic agricultural and clothing/household item manufacturing environment.
Why don't they have these industries? Singapore started out from Malaria ridden jungle to one of the richest, highest GNP economy in the world, without Africa's natural resources.
South Korea was a war torn, bombed down wasteland and within 50 years it is now top 10 economic powerhouse of the world.
Saudi Arabia was a bumblefuck nowheresville desert with fiefdoms and petty tribes dotted randomly in the sand, until they found out their natural resource pitched a high price to the westerners. And now their kingdom is the richest and most politically influential nation in the world.
Did anybody ORDER them to learn new technology from the westerners? Did anybody TEACH them to strive for better quality in life?
No, they fucking decided that for themselves!!!
So what the fuck is up with Africa, seriously? Is it seriously lack of information and education? Seriously? They just don't know where to start? But then how the hell would they know you can get precious metals from burning them?
ANd like Pprt said, why wouldn't they simply just ply out the parts? They're too impatient to do that? Smashing it is more 'efficient?'
Africa pisses me off beyond belief. Why the hell would they do this to themselves? Why would they be contempt? Why can't they rise up, demand something better, start waging war for the purpose of 'CONQUERING' more resources and not petty politics like 'your daughter is a witch' or something?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

Freed the slaves? The party that freed the slaves doesn't exist anymore. The party that freed the slaves was a liberal, progressive party. They may have had the same name, but they're nothing like today's GOP. The Dems were the conservative party in those days.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

I didn't see that statement as playing the victim, a behavior that I despise. He's just taking the wind out of the arguments by bringing them to the table first. Scare tactics are what we've come to expect from the NeoCons. If you don't do what they want, the terrorists have won. Which, now that I think about it, really makes them terrorists themselves.

Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.

I agree that hate crime laws are nonsense and I've been thrashed by the sift for saying so. They are nothing more than legal discrimination. The right might be taken more seriously if they didn't have such a reputation for racism and discrimination. (Accurate or not, that's their reputation)

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there.

He was referring to 100 years of occupation, which still qualifies as war in my opinion. Maybe not fighting, but still a war scenario. I don't think we need military stationed all over the globe, decade after decade. I want our military here, protecting our country when the need arises. We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it, we invaded to conquer it, and "in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K?

First off, I hadn't even heard the "Sambo" story before you mentioned it so don't accuse me of any reaction. I looked it up after your comment and the whole thing is ridiculous. A pair of nobodies post the story in their blog with no credible backing... It's not something I would have even taken the time to look at had I stumbled upon it. The Reps haven't missed the opportunity to turn the story into a lie of their own, though. They're claiming this story was fabricated by "Obama's campaign". It sounds more sinister than saying it came from two losers who run a pro-Obama blog.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/
Obama's relations to this organization.

No, no. Obama's ties to PA were easy enough to find. What I want to know is where the description of PA sounding like Hitler's Youth came from. That was some loony conspiracy theory shit right there.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

^You dear sir, are bat shit insane. More taxes equals a more well-educated workforce? Ive got a news flash for you: OUR TAXES ARE THE HIGHEST THEY'VE EVER BEEN! OUR EDUCATION IS ARGUABLY THE WORST IT'S EVER BEEN!

And, please, I need you to cite examples and references of those "other industrialized nations" that have paid so much more into their educational systems than we have and are reaping the benefits. And, if you could make that reference "peer-evaluated" and "politically unbiased" that would be awesome, though I'm sure you cannot. Essentially what I'm saying is: I don't believe you. Show me that Utopian government success story, and I'll show you a lie.

I have a good friend of a friend who is a teacher at a charter school here in LA. He's an Anarchist (not the Molotov Cocktail type), so he's extremely left. He even agrees with me that the Department of Education is a joke and needs to be repealed and dissolved. He agrees that it hurts the children's education. And, he's a far leftist with a subjective perspective into that morass.

I will agree with you somewhere, though. I will agree we need to stop paying into the military industrial complex. One-hundred percent! But, the answer isn't to take money away and move it somewhere else. We just need to stop our government from taking so much. Period!

I think they are simply trying to making Bioshock type success story for the consoles.

Remember the big thing about Bioshock is that it took out alot of the complexity and RPG elements from System Shock 2 and basically made a FPS shooter. For me that really killed the game, I felt I was basically playing a shooter dressed up with a good plot line and a few audio logs. But since I already heard of Ayn Rand it wasn't that appealing to me.

This is another dilution of the formula, which am not surprised to see considering how much life and complexity The Elder Scrolls lost going from Morrowind on the PC to Oblivion on the PC (The Xbox to Xbox 360 exclusive status to be blamed).

In essence they will turn Fallout into a more formulaic game, the plot will be good I gather but it will be whittled down by the simplified interface and mechanic to satisfy the console base.

What I find stupid is that most gamers are much older now, raised through successive lines of consoles from the 70s and 80s. Instead of appealing to a more mature audience they keep making games for 14 year olds.

I homeschooled my second son for a whole year and let me tell you, it sucked in many ways. He's autistic and very stubborn at times but the academics wasn't the problem (although it weren't easy neither!) the problem was when his paternal grandparents found out what I was doing (because I like a naive fool that I was TOLD THEM) they added that to their custody suit against me. Honestly I can prove that he did more academic work with me than he got done at public school but dealing with that asinine guardian ad litem who seemed to think that homeschooling = lazy parent (?!?!) was enough to drive me insane.

Let me add one thing, though; I know quite a few homeschooling parents and I have noticed that often times, the entire subject of homeschooling comes about because the HS parents has to point out that THEY are not sending their precious to that icky public school THEY are HOMESCHOOLING *sniff* I hd to tell at least one friend of mine "look, that doesn't necessarily make you superior so come off your high horse please"
I think so long as you say it in a pleasant conversational way, most parents will be cool. But its hard not to take offense or be suspicious about motives when the HS parents acts as if they are somehow better than you just because they are homeschooling. I've met HS success-stories and HS failures - I think there's more successes than failures but failure can happen too, no one is immune.
Grats to you tho! I know it ain't easy!

Thanks for the link firefly. I have XP install disks, so that's not a problem. It's just the drivers. It seems there are a few sites out there that write their own drivers. I'm kind of afraid to try such things.

MG: My desktop is fine. It's just that it's way off on the other side of my home and I'm always sitting on my couch and sometimes in bed working where I've tried, but my desktop just takes too much effort to drag around like that.

Maybe if I find enough success stories about downgrading to XP on laptops like mine I'll give it a shot... I really would like to.

From Harper's 6 questions posed to Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman, both have a long record of effective exposé work dealing with military contracting. Rasor is an investigative journalist who used to run the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), and Bauman was a career criminal investigator at the Department of Defense and a Certified Fraud Examiner. They have collaborated in a new book, Betraying Our Troops, that takes a hard-nosed look at the unprecedented outlays to private contractors in connection with the war on terror.

1. Can you describe why the force deployed in Iraq after the invasion was so heavy with contractors, and to what extent the contractors are performing functions that are essentially the same as those performed by the military?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ignoring the recommendations of his senior military officers to send more than 300,000 soldiers, insisted on an invasion force of about 180,000 soldiers instead. In order to carry out his wishes, the military needed to utilize most of those soldiers as combat units, not support or logistics units. That meant having to augment military support with a heavy dose of contractors in order to keep up with the invasion force. The primary function of contractors, the military supply line, was previously performed by the military. In performing that function, the contractor has had to operate on the battlefield, driving trucks of supplies in convoys even though they were not allowed to carry weapons.

2. In Iraq, contractors have often been required to provide their own security rather than rely on the uniformed military. What issues does this raise in your mind?

Contractors using private security contractors for security raise several issues. First, security operators have been performing their duties with little or no supervision or management control, sometimes leading to uncontrolled actions against Iraqi citizens that breed contempt for Americans (especially the troops) in those citizens. Secondly, the Army and Iraqi civilian authorities have no control or authority over security contractors. That can lead to conflicts with military operations and allows those contractors to escape prosecution if crimes are committed.

3. The book is closely related to your Follow the Money project, which investigates inconsistencies between what the Pentagon spends, and what military forces in Iraq actually receive. In Iraq, were the DOD’s usual accountability rules for cash followed? What in your mind accounts for so much money going missing?

Accountability of contractors in Iraq has been a major problem leading to huge cost overruns. The Army has not had proper levels of acquisition personnel to ensure accountability and has pretty much relied on contractors to do the right thing. Information we have obtained over the last several years and the results of many governmental investigations such as those carried out by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) have exposed an almost complete lack of oversight and accountability, putting the DOD at extreme risk. Poor oversight and internal controls have also led to a lack of accountability with regards to considerable amounts of money.

4. You have been working closely with a number of whistleblowers in producing your book. How has the Pentagon dealt with these whistleblowers?

The primary whistleblower featured in our book, Major Rick Lamberth, has suffered retaliation and threats of his career being ruined by the Army if he continued to talk publicly about the problems. Harsh treatment and retribution has been a pattern against those who dare to blow the whistle about contracting problems for Iraq. There have been very few, if any, success stories for whistleblowers trying to expose fraud during this war.

5. In your experience, how has the Department of Defense Inspector General dealt with contractor abuse allegations?

The DOD Inspector General (IG), including the Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCIS), has been the most competent agency within DOD in investigating contract fraud, waste, and abuse. During the 1980s, DCIS was the lead agency on almost all contract fraud cases, and was very successful. Starting in the 1990s, the IG’s effectiveness was hampered by staffing reductions and jurisdictional squabbles. This has led to the military investigative agencies taking over the lead in contract fraud investigations with DCIS support only if requested. The Army’s investigative agencies are not nearly as competent nor as independent as DCIS, or the IG in general, including in the investigation of contract fraud, waste and abuse, mainly due to the control the Army chain of command has over investigations.

6. Have the contractors gained influence over the contracting process through politics, a revolving door policy, or other factors? How do you think it will be possible to create a more arm’s length relationship in the future?

There is no question that DOD contractors control the acquisition process. This has been true for decades. DOD’s acquisition personnel do not have the numbers or the same level of expertise that contractor acquisition personnel have. Also, the DOD’s stifling bureaucracy, the desire not to upset the contractor, and poor morale due to low staffing levels created in the 1990s have all allowed contractors to take more control. When a DOD contract specialist or auditor upsets the contractor, that specialist or auditor is usually transferred and/or disciplined. And many DOD acquisition officials end up going to work for contractors. It is possible to restore control by the DOD, but it would take many changes, starting with a significant increase in acquisition personnel. As compromised as the acquisition process has been in the past decades, the rush to war and the fact that we are on a wartime footing make questioning the acquisition process more risky for investigators, whistleblowers, and Congress. There has been an effort to question the patriotism of anyone who questions where the money is going and whether it is really helping the troops.

‘Betraying Our Troops:’ Six Questions for Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman

Over the last few years there were reports that showed the US military dropping recruitment requirements and offering waivers in exchange for military service.

Reports of the Army unable to supply sufficiently armored vehicles and other equipment against IED threats, pre and post surge. Soldiers are now familiarizing combat driving techniques using simulators because there is a shortage of M-1114s.

America does possess formidable military forces, but we are talking about soldiers on the ground currently not total combined forces; which would take into account navy and air.

Extended tours (from 12 to 15 months), with multiple returns are common, fatigue is taking it's toll. A secondary surge has already taken place to bolster troop numbers, by sending more combat brigades and extending tours for troops already in Iraq.

Troop levels would thus increase to around 200,000 by the end of this year, a record since the start of OIF. These numbers of course do not include the large number of private military contractors in Iraq, also surging in numbers, paid for by US taxpayers under contract from the DOD. Meanwhile the Army is shedding officers at an alarming rate, 44% left, the highest loss rate in 3 decades.

With regards to the Al Anbar success stories, one must remember that is only occurring because previous Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda, making US forces the most convenient allies in driving out foreign radical Islamic terrorists. The relationship is tenacious, it also means the US forces now have to bolster previous Sunni insurgents and make them components of the Iraqi government, which is filled with Shia militias who do not want minority Sunni influence.

"To bolster that case, Bush made his own surprise visit to a U.S. military base in Anbar province on Sept. 3 to tout growing cooperation between Sunni tribal leaders and American forces.

But the sheiks didn't seek out U.S. help because an additional 30,000 U.S. troops had been shipped to Iraq. Rather, the sheiks had found themselves caught between al-Qaeda extremists on one side and Shiite-dominated government forces on the other.

The Americans became the enemy and erstwhile friend, respectively, of my enemies – and thus an ally of convenience for the Sunni sheiks.

Indeed, the Anbar situation could be viewed as evidence that the political and ethnic divisions of Iraq continue to deepen – with Sunni traditionalists growing only more desperate. But these shifting sands of allegiances have become the foundation upon which Bush is building his case for open-ended U.S. military involvement in Iraq."

- How VIPs get 'Brainwashed' on Iraq by Robert Parry.

The important thing to consider is; will such success be replicated in other provinces? Will the forces join into the Shia dominated government which opposes Sunni influence? Thus how long will this commitment last. All questions to which officers within the armed forces cannot answer, because the situation is that fragile.

After posing gamely with the troops at the Al-Asad base, Bush celebrated the return of Sunni areas to the control of U.S.-armed militias-composed largely of former insurgents who have at least temporarily decided that their Shiite rivals, currently in control of the central government, are a more pressing enemy than the American occupiers. Speaking of one such group of Sunnis trained by the Americans and dubbed the “Volunteers” by their instructors, a U.S. soldier told The Washington Post, “I think there is some risk of them being Volunteers by day and terrorists by night.”

The National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iraqi goverment is precarious, violence remains high, a decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing. The Government Accountability Report, a congressionally mandated report, showed that the Iraqi goverment met 3, partially 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. The NIE was tweaked favorably by Gen. David Petraeus, the GAO was attacked by the White House as being 'inadmissible', 'harsh' and 'locked into failure'.

With regards to your comments about losing Iraq on principle, it was never a war for us to win in any sense, it was a systematic fear mongering campaign driven by PowerPoint presentations with aerial photographs about WMDs that got us into Iraq.

After 4 years of being constantly lied to about hostilities ending, turning the corner, mission accomplished, and witnessing the daily ineptness of the way the current administration has and is handling the war we are again on the brink of giving this administration another pass on the war up to 2009 since the current surge will remain up to and until April 2008. To have President Bush then compare the Iraq war to Vietnam; As Andrew Sullivan put it:

His speech yesterday actually managed to shock. You might think that, in wartime, a president would acknowledge what no one denies is a terribly grim decision in front of us - whether to pursue a clearly unwinnable war in order to govern a clearly ungovernable country - or withdraw and redeploy in ways that will doubtless lead to even more bloodshed. But no. There is no gray here; no awful decision for the least worst option; not acknowledgment of his own moral culpability for such a disaster. There is instead an accusation that those who reach a different judgment about the course of the war are, in fact, enemies of the troops:

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

To place all the troops into the position of favoring one strategy ahead of us rather than another, and to accuse political opponents of trying to "pull the rug out from under them," is a, yes, fascistic tactic designed to corral political debate into only one possible patriotic course. It's beneath a president to adopt this role, beneath him to coopt the armed services for partisan purposes. It should be possible for a president to make an impassioned case for continuing his own policy in Iraq, without accusing his critics of wanting to attack and betray the troops. But that would require class and confidence. The president has neither.

For more I would refer you to an excellent post - Thirteen Ways not to think about the Iraq war.

I'm amused by the fact that they cite Brookers as a Youtube success story while her videos get consistently voted down to the negatives or don't make it out of the queue when posted here. Ironic.

And yes, rah rah dag and James.