Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

We don't usually agree, but I agree. Those people are nutso! It explains Clinton's popularity.

eta: Merde! STP!

What purpose does it serve?
 

Aide and comfourt to our enemy.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Of course I know this, but I wanted to see how they would rationalize it, and knew someone like Ty would provide me with that rationalization (and actually believe it).

Congress pressuring the President to adopt a different undefined strategy, now there is a good way to conduct a war. Maybe if in past wars we had a hundred senators and four hundred and thirty five members of the house influencing strategy by pressuring the commander in chief through resolutions the wars would have gone better for us. Maybe congressional committees should choose bombing sites and review every platoon's tactical plans.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Enh, couldn't be much worse than having George do it. I wish that I could believe that the military is getting what it actually thinks it needs. I'm happy to give Gates some time, but when the President does his dopey "i'm the decider"/"i'm the decision-maker" thing, it makes me a little queasy.

Caption?
 

http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/0f...8d81e1faab.jpg

Thought bubble: Am I on "Punk'd"?

What purpose does it serve?
 

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

and coincidentally, if 9/11 had happened while Clinton was still Prez, you would likely be one of them.

What purpose does it serve?
 

remember the acid trip movies from health? you only think you know what you see.

What purpose does it serve?
 

If Democrats were merely trying to use the issue to punish the GOP in the next election, they'd be a lot more confrontational, in the hopes of getting the Norm Colemans of the world to stick with the President and then have to take the heat in '08. Instead, they went with a relatively mild, non-binding resolution designed to pick off the Norm Colemans and bring them over to the anti-escalation side. That they did this tells you that they care more about trying to change Iraq policy than about trying to flip (e.g.) Norm Coleman's seat in (less than) two years.

But I'm sure it's hard for you to imagine that Democrats would put the national interest ahead of their own partisan ends, since the Republicans never tried in the last several years.

What purpose does it serve?
 

When Patreus says under oath in front of a Senate committee that this is what he needs why would you second guess him? He is going to be the guy in charge so why shouldn't you let me him do things the best way he knows how? What possible good could it do to leave him in charge but not give him what he asks for?

What purpose does it serve?
 

Do these guys think they are reading Patreus's mind and really know what he is thinking? Even if they think he is lying what gives them the temerity to think they know what he really wants? And why do they think he doesn't really want the troops? In what management class did they learn to put some in charge but tie his hands on the job? Maybe it would make sense to complain about who the president puts in charge, but to support this man taking over, and then question his requests is just pure stupidity.

Just watch this 3 hour video and tell me it's not true
 

So it's the Dem equivalent of the neocons' Vince Foster Nutjob Litmus Test? Now I get it.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Newsflash: Bush is the Decider. Not Petreus.

What purpose does it serve?
 

Do you think Patreus is lying when he tells the Senate committee he wants the troops? Do you think he is lying when he says that the plan to secure Iraq with these fifty new security points is his idea? Is he lying when he says he needs these extra troops to secure those nexuses?

What purpose does it serve?
 

Was he under oath? I can't find anything either way.

Why would I second guess him? Because other generals in the past 4 years have said the same thing and later said something different. Because I don't trust what this president says anymore than Penske trusts what Clinton says. Because I do believe that, whatever else, Patreaus (i) believes that the president is the CiC, and therefore his commanding officer (i.e. follow orders or resign) and (ii) believes that he can get the job done, even if it's not exactly what he'd want in a perfect world.