You mean the ones who think we should live up to our beliefs and finish what we started rather than turn tail like cowards and leave the Iraqi's to their own demise. I find it amazing you want us to be so inhumane about the situation in Iraq. Why not just request to bomb and level the entire country. It would be a better use of our resources. That way we kill the bad guys all at once and then we can leave and let the Iraqi's decide (the ones who survived anyways)if they wanna keep fighting or rebuild. BTW, you are a coward.

"You mean the ones who think we should live up to our beliefs and finish what we started rather than turn tail like cowards and leave the Iraqi's to their own demise."

People that refuse to understand we are in the middle of a Civil war we can not militarily win.

People who will support a president that has screwed up almost every aspect of the Iraq War.

People who ignore what the vast majority of Americans want - our involvement in Iraq to end and turn the fighting over to the Iraqi Military we have spent 4 years and hundreds of Billions training!

What a shameful and false statement.

Understand or believe that there's a Civil War? Those are 2 different views there. Remember the Civil War idea is your opinion and not a fact.



If so why did you only list GOP Senators considering that Dems also supported Bush when they voted to go to Iraq? Your hypocrisy is showing again.



I thought you said the the vast majority of Americans wanted us to leave Iraq regardless if they were ready or not? I thought Bush said we would leave when Iraq was ready? Now they want us to leave because Iraq is ready? And I thought you said we wasted billions in Iraq, sounds to me like money well spent if we managed to train a brand new military and police force in 4 years. And last I checked the Democrats, with their terrible approval ratings in Congress, have not exactly been doing the will of the people either. They still have not approved the fence to be built in Arizona considering the bill was approved and the money is just sitting there waiting to be used.

Keep trying Col, I've got a bullet for every plate you throw at me.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007
GOP Senators that need to be removed in November 2008. These are the members of the Senate that voted to continue KILLING our military in the Civil War in Iraq:


“What a shameful and false statement.”

What is SHAMEFUL is the Vote of those GOP Senators. What they did will result in the death of more of our troops for NO Valid reason.

Understand or believe that there's a Civil War? Those are 2 different views there. Remember the Civil War idea is your opinion and not a fact. It is also the opinion of the senior military commanders past and present. They have admitted the vast majority of the violence is between the internal factions fighting for control of Iraq and that6 ONLY political changes can end that violence.

If so why did you only list GOP Senators considering that Dems also supported Bush when they voted to go to Iraq? Your hypocrisy is showing again.
I listed ONLY the GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008. If Lieberman were up for reelection he would also been listed.

I thought you said the vast majority of Americans wanted us to leave Iraq regardless if they were ready or not? I thought Bush said we would leave when Iraq was ready?

The Iraqi PM said they can now defend themselves.

Polls in Iraq show the vast majority of Iraqi's want us to leaver and I believe 60% thought it was OK to attack and kill our troops. The vast majority of Americans want us to end our involvement in the war.

And last I checked the Democrats, with their terrible approval ratings in Congress, Those low approval ratings is for Congress overall. That is because everything the majority want Congress to do is being blocked by the GOP. The vote on the war is a perfect example!

I just shot you’re a** out of the water!!!!!

LOL. At least you have a sense of humor. Not all is lost.



It is also their opinion that the job can be done, but you dismiss that idea, don't you? How come is it that when the military commanders say something positive about Iraq you quickly dismiss it but when they say something that can strengthen your case you love them?



Of course you did, you were not that stupid to put something that could be used against you. Well maybe not all the time. That still doesn't negate the fact that the Dems were also in favor of the war. And that doesn't mean that people will favor giving the Dems more power considering that their approval ratings are hitting rock bottom. If anything that have done more damage than good to themselves.



Yes, the same people you called a failure. Funny how you warm up to people when they tell you exactly what yu wanna hear. I bet you would love Bush if he said we are leaving Iraq to go to Pakistan.



Yea, I don't believe in the polls here in the US, what makes you think I will take an Iraqi poll serious.



Overall? LOL< that overall was not that low before the Dem took over. Besides if the Dems have more power how exactly are the GOP blocking them? And you had the balls to say you shot me out of the water. You were point the gun to yourself.

BTW, how many more dishes do you have, cause my bullet case is still waiting for more targets.

“It is also their opinion that the job can be done, but you dismiss that idea, don't you?”

The have very little choice. They also do not claim that the calm would last AFTER our troops are removed. If the basic reason for the sectarian fighting is not resolved, the parties will go under ground, shift the location (Which is what they are doing) but not give up the objective which is to control Iraq and its oil wealth. Only a political agreement can eliminate the cause for the fighting and that can not be accomplished by applying more force.

The only way to STOP the sectarian violence without a political settlement would be to apply overwhelming Force which we can not do with 160,000. That is WHY the Op Plan and generals told Bush it would take 500,000 U.S. Troops to control the factions within Iraq and stop foreign terrorists from setting up shop. Had Bush listened to his military, the situation in Iraq with BOITH with the Sunni and Shea as well as al-Qaeda would most likely be very different. We may have been able to turn over a stable country to the civilian government. That will not happen with the troop levels and the fact that both the internal and foreign elements have armed themselves and organized. Add the help from Iran and Saudi Arabia and the situation is impossible. It is truly a game of Whack-a-Mole and when we leave the fighting will resume even in the areas that we were able to calm! There is NO military solution we can impart with 160,000 troops!!!!!!!

Overall? < that overall was not that low before the Dem took over.

You are correct. After November 2006, the people believed changes would be made including getting out of Iraq. They did not understand that even though the Democrats took control of Congress they can not make the changes the Americans want because the GOP and Bush can block change. It will take the 2008 election to produce the change Americans voted for in 2006. That is the message the Democrats need to make understood. The Vote in the senate yesterday will make it clear that the GOP and Bush are stopping the change the majority wants!

on top of which the dems are the reason for us still being dependent on foreign oil.

the rep. tried to drill in the gulf of mexico. blocked by the democrats.

the rep. tried to drill in anwar(which was set aside for drilling in the first place.) blocked by the dems.

so tell me great old dictator gene where are we to drill for oil in canada.


all your other comments aren't worth commenting about. and won't be until you stop using the word vast.

The rep. tried to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Blocked by the democrats.

That is not an answer to the energy needs. I support Gas drilling in the Gulf but oil is another matter. We need other Non oil solutions and to use existing supplies more efficiently-- cafe Standards.

you know, i just kind of breezed through the last bit of this, but its funny that the dems blocked drilling in the gulf of mexico, but they support the idea of letting the mexicans drill there. which proves that they don't really care about the environment, they just don't want what would be best for america.

non oil answers are too far away. we need oil answers before we need non oil answers.

its a waste of time to try and have this kind of discussion on a page with col gene. the more i hear from this clown the more i wonder if he's for real. i'm starting to really believe that he's just stirring the pot to stir the pot. i have a hard time believing that anyone can really be so sure that he knows it all. if you are for real, you are a joke, and i wonder how you can function day to day.

you'll notice i stopped calling that loser col.

he states that he wants america to stop using foriegn oil and then when he is presented with a way to do it. he says i don't want to do it that way. i want to use electric cars but he forgets that that car has to be powered by electricity produced by a power plant. which uses either oil or coal.

Hey CLOWN, I noticed how you "completely avoided the last part of my post.



Care to comment now, fool?

That is not our problem once we are gone. Kinda surprised you care at all considering you want us out right now. If they chose to screw up the country after we leave then its their problem. WE need only to leave it stable enough for us to go home.



Oh you are funny Col. You must be including yourself in that group of people now because before the elections and the next day after the elections you were 100% sure that it was the end of Bush's tyranny over the country. Now you are saying the Dems never stood a chance? What a hypocrite, you could be a great politician by todays terms. You switch views faster than I can switch channels on my TV. You can't stick to your own guns long enough to even noticed you had them at one point.



According to you it will take an action that you yourself said should not be done. You said that a single party should not have control of all houses, that is exactly what you want for the Democrats. That no single party should cater to only their party. Hypocrite.

the use of ethanol to solve our dependency problem is only a bandied. it will only be effective at the most for 10 years. this i got from the house floor from a democrat who was speaking. sorry i don't remember who she was.

You know, I had a long answer for you here but I decided to make it into an article that I hope to have done before the end of the day or by tomorrow.

“non oil answers are too far away.”

That is not true. We can build wind, solar, clean coal electric plants and more electric cars NOW with no new technology. The oil in Alaska would require 10 YEARS to begin flowing. If Bush had acted in 2001 when he was elected to increase auto mileage we would have millions of NEW cars getting better gas mileage. If he had started a process to provide tax credits to build solar and wind in 2001 we would be much farther ahead then we are today. The truth is Bush DID NOTHING effective to improve our domestic production of energy or to more effectively use existing oil supplies!

Doesn't exist!

No President has done anything like that in recent history, if ever.  Although I see you can't help but blame this all on Bush.  A democrat will do no better, but then again you will somehow blame Bush for them not doing it.

Reply By: drmiler Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007
“Clean coal electric plants doesn’t exist!”


YES there is- It requires scrubbers to remove the pollutants from the air! No Matter Bush does not care about the environment!

“No President has done anything like that in recent history, if ever. Although I see you can't help but blame this all on Bush”.

That is correct. But remember back to 2001-- How the former Oil Men were to help solve the energy issues-- BUSH DID less then Clinton because he would not renew the Cafe Standards which made us MORE dependent then ever. All he did is make a gift to BIG oil!

actually they can exist there is a type of coal when you burn it. it doesn't pollute. it is called soft coal. there are two deposits of it in the world. southern Utah and Indonesia. we can't mine the stuff in southern Utah because Clinton made the area a presidential monument. and then collected/received 100,000 dollar contribution from Indonesia.(i could be wrong he might have gotten the contribution first.)

NO, there isn't. No amount of scrubbing will remove all the pollutants, just some of them.

And maybe you should do a little research. Scubbers are used to reduce "particulate" emissions, they have no effect on the gaseous emissions.

NO, there isn't. No amount of scrubbing will remove all the pollutants, just some of them.

They can remove most of the emissions. Also Wind and Solar are available which Bush has ignored. We also have the improved gas mileage which Bush has also ignored. All he wants to do is drill for oil and give tax credits to BIG OIL. Bush sat on his ass and has done nothing to help the energy situation!

don't forget that clinton also ignored it. and ever other democrat and republican in washington has ignored it.