And anyone else on here that cares to chime in.

I cross-posted this diary on Daily Kos this morning.
http://www.dailykos….

It was immediately labeled as a troll post.

Why?

It wasn’t a flame. It was up front about what I believed. Its wasn’t even that snarky (at least for me).

It was pretty plain vanilla.

Shit, it was even pretty accurate. I don’t think anyone on here thinks Pelosi is going to let funding for the war get cut off and I think everyone on here is rather surprised that the Pelosi jet story, which is a stupid story, still has legs.

Are these sites, GMD, Kos, Red State so self enclosed that they turn into one big echo chamber?

What good does that do?

I guess I’m also a little pissy (looking straight at you Odum) that you pulled the link from my Blog. Of course it’s your right, its your kingdom.

But I guess I would ask why.

You know who I am. You know what my beliefs are. You know that if you put up a Welch press release, an INACCURATE press release, and then call me out in your post, well, I’m coming out with my guns blazing.

What do you expect?

Would you want folks on these sites that only talk about how criminal Dick Cheney is or only talk about how terrible John Kerry is?

I mean, I don’t know. But it seems to me that you wouldn’t.

I enjoy Kos and GMD b/c these sites challenge me and test what I believe. Just like I enjoy Red State b/c that site tests me and what I believe.

People cannot honestly believe that everything that has to do with the Republican Party is all bad and that everything that has to do with the Democratic Party is all good?

You can’t honestly take yourself so seriously that when someone disagrees with those two assumptions you go through the roof?

I’ve learned alot about blogging in the last 3 months and I really, really enjoy it. And, I’ve seen great stuff on both sides of the aisle. And, I’ve seen some really hateful ignorant stuff put out on both sides of the aisle.

So I guess I would ask, can’t we all just get along? Or is that an impossible?

(I’m asking that in a very broad sense, not just related to GMD)

Today I was asked, “Did you see Peter Welch and the President at The State of the Union Address last night?”

I answered that I had not.

After Bush’s speech was finished last night I turned off the TV. I didn’t watch as he walked out of the House Chamber through “Photo-Op Alley” while Republican Members mugged him for photographs.

But then I caught this news story about a Republican Congresswoman who was so excited to see the President last night that she held onto him in “Photo-Op Alley” for a full 30 seconds:

  Early Wednesday morning, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS showed video of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s exchange with President Bush Tuesday night. The video shows Bachmann grabbing onto and holding the president for almost 30 seconds.

  Within hours, that video was blasted all over the Internet and viewed almost 250,000 times before the lunch hour. It was linked on national news Web sites and blogs across the country, a New York Times blogger even wrote about the story.

But guess who is COMPETING with that crazy Republican Congresswoman for the President’s attention?

Why none other than Vermont freshman Congressman Peter Welch!

Check out the video for yourself.http://www.kstp.com/…

That’s Peter. Grinning like a schoolboy and getting a back slap from the President.

Peter has finally held the President accountable for something.

An autograph.

Rest assured, Shay’s email box and voice mail is blowing up with angry calls from Andrew Savage (who I don’t know well at all but I like what little I know).

And, this is just the start.

Where is the “new direction” where is the “holding the President accountable”?

http://www.vermontgu…

Where is the ’08 independent/Progressive candidate?

But it was good to see you on Daily Kos today.
I’ve learned what a ‘Tip Jar” is.
I’ve learned what a “Troll” is.
What a nice, productive day it was.

Dear Democratic Party,

You guys (and gals) are out of your (well intentioned) minds.

Today Barck Obama announced he was filing exploratory paperwork and considering a run for President. You need to stop his silliness this right now.

Barack is as ready to be President of the United State as George W. Bush was in 1999. Yes, that’s right – George W. Bush.

Remember 1999? Bill Clinton was at the end of his final term and Clinton fatigue had settled over the country. The Republican Party, so tired and disgusted after 8 years of Bill, was desperately searching for someone, anyone, who was the anti-Clinton.

Along came the plain speaking Cowboy Governor of Texas who talked of compassionate conservatism and restoring dignity to the office of the Presidency.

Restoring dignity, ah what a campaign platform!

The Republican Party (and then the whole country) brushed aside questions about the Cowboy Governor’s lack of experience: “Experience? Shit boy, W has had two terms as Texas’ Governor and their ain’t nothing finer than Texas!”

Then the Republican Party (and then the whole country) brushed aside questions about the Cowboy Governor’s campaign platform: “Issues? Shit boy, W has said he’s for restoring dignity to the Office of the Presidency. Ain’t that enough? What are you, a Log Cabin Republican?”

We all know how the Cowboy Governor worked out.

Which brings us to Barack.

In 2007 this country has a serious case of Bush fatigue. Both political Parties (and everyone in the country with the exception of Barney and Laura) are looking for an anti-Bush in ’08.

Along comes the plain talking Senator Hunk of Illinois who talks of “a different kind of politics” and the nation’s “hunger for change”.

Said Senator Hunk when he filed the exploratory paperwork today:

  “I certainly didn’t expect to find myself in this position a year ago. I’ve been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I’ve spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need.”

Hallelujah! This HAS GOT to be our man! What depth. What detail. What Compassionate Liberalism!

Obama’s for C-H-A-N-G-E!

Give me a C…

And, just as the Cowboy Governor was a proud hick beloved by his hick loving activist base, Senator Hunk is African-American, an added bonus for limousine liberals activists who would no longer have to snag token black friends from corporate America.

Ah the irony.

And so my Democratic Party friends I ask you, can we really afford another 8 years of Compassionate anything?

In the world we live in, having a President who is policy-lite is not a good thing.

Write Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod a letter and tell them how you feel. They’ll still love you in the morning.

Happy weekend all. And happy football.

Over at Greenmountainpolitics1 I typed out this little missive. Though this wonderful community might enjoy.

Yeah, I have opinions.

http://greenmountain…

is as smart as they come, and he doesn’t support the surge.

The Chinese have called him, “the greatest strategic thinker in the western world”

He is Mr. Real Politic.

If Leahy/Sanders/sissy Welch want to sound smart when they talk about stopping the surge, this is where I would start.

(PS, the Dems, no matter how smart they sound, still have one hell of a political problem with the Iraq war. That’s the subject for another post.)

This ran in today’s Post. Brzezinski was on last night’s Leher News Hour saying the same thing.

Five Flaws in the President’s Plan

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Friday, January 12, 2007; A19

The president’s speech gives rise to five broad observations:

· It provided a more realistic analysis of the situation in Iraq than any previous presidential statement. It acknowledged failure, though it dodged accountability for that failure by the standard device of assuming personal responsibility. Its language was less Islamophobic than has been customary with President Bush’s rhetoric since Sept. 11, though the president still could not resist the temptation to engage in a demagogic oversimplification of the challenge the United States faces in Iraq, calling it a struggle to safeguard “a young democracy” against extremists and an effort to protect American society from terrorists. Both propositions are more than dubious.

· The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.

· The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing “benchmarks” on the “sovereign” Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear — as it almost certainly will — that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of “blame and run”: i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious “falling dominoes” scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush’s mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it.

· The speech did not explore even the possibility of developing a framework for an eventual political solution. The search for a political solution would require a serious dialogue about a joint American-Iraqi decision regarding the eventual date of a U.S. withdrawal with all genuine Iraqi political leaders who command respect and wield physical power. The majority of the Iraqi people, opinion polls show, favor such a withdrawal within a relatively short period. A jointly set date would facilitate an effort to engage all of Iraq’s neighbors in a serious discussion about regional security and stability. The U.S. refusal to explore the possibility of talks with Iran and Syria is a policy of self-ostracism that fits well into the administration’s diplomatic style of relying on sloganeering as a substitute for strategizing.

· The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush’s policy.

The writer, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is the author of the forthcoming book “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.”

The owner of this blog ended up posting comments on my site over the last few days.

I have no idea who these people(person) are(is)

Anyway, I got to admit, so far I like the little SOB’s talking points. And, politically, its a smart move – define your opponent early.

I sent the blog writer – the anonomous writer – an email saying that I would promote their blog if they stuck to the facts and if they came out of the closet. No response as of yet.

I’ve had enough of the PolitcsVT stuff for awhile.

Anyway, since I feel like a (sorta) accepted conservative member of the GMD family, I would pass along this site to you all. See if you found it interesting.

http://welchwatching…

Thank you for the link.

(editor’s note: I am still waiting for my good friend Odum to link to my blog as he promised last week. He must be busy!)

Here we go. Tomorrow night President Bush will announce that he is putting more American troops into Iraq. Along with the troop increase, Bush is expected to unveil new diplomatic and economic efforts in the Middle East.

Chattering Classes start your engines.

I hate the Iraq War. My vocal opposition to the war before the conflict started cost me a good job with the Central Intelligence Agency. The debt load that this country is taking on to fight this war will cost my children even more.

I’m one of the lucky ones. In America, we generally all tend to be. For all intents and purposes, this war has cost us little.

And when I say “us” I’m referring to the people who spend their weekends wandering through the mall, closely monitoring Paris Hilton’s latest relationships and complaining, loudly, when gasoline prices at the pump jump 50 cents as their SUVs only get 15 miles to the gallon. Us Americans.

Life is good for us, which is why we went along with this war in the first place without asking too many questions. That, and we were (or is the word I’m looking for “are”?) stupid and lazy.

It’s true – 5% of the world’s population lackadaisically consuming 25% of the world’s resources on a daily basis doesn’t make you smart and active.

Which is why the Republican majority went along with Bush’s insane plans to invade Iraq. Which is also why the Democratic minority went along with it, and the mainstream media to (I’m looking right at you Judith Miller, you coy little fox, playing up your freedom of the press jail time in the vain hope that we would forget that you allowed yourself to be spoon-fed news about Iraq by Cheney’s office. Naughty.).

Anyway, I got my tax cuts, didn’t you? Let’s all have another doughnut.

Now I’m not saying that this war has been cheap, good heavens no! Just because this war didn’t cost us much doesn’t mean that it didn’t cost someone else quite a lot.

Several hundred billion dollars spent, several thousand American troops killed, thirty thousand American troops injured and a quarter-million of Iraqis killed is not “cheap”.

The true cost of the conflict increases exponentially when you consider that starting this war in the first place was never in our national security interests. In fact, it was on this very point that the CIA and I parted ways (I exacerbated the break by snottily depositing Brent Scowcroft’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed saying the exact same thing on my case worker’s desk).

Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, no connection to non-state actor terrorist organizations, no weapons of mass destruction and, believe it or not, was actually a stabilizing force in the Middle East in terms of keeping pumps to the world’s largest oil patch on and flowing.

And keeping those pumps on is in fat America’s national security interest.

Iraq was not our problem until we made it our problem.

And then our insane invasion made Iraq our problem.

So here we are.

We have three options about what we as a country are going to do to move forward in Iraq (even after Senator Biden holds hearings we are still only going to have these same three options).

Option one is to stay the course and continue to do what we have been doing in Iraq.

Option two is to re-deploy all of our troops immediately. It will take about 6 months and must be facilitated by the Congress cutting off funding for the war, which they can do.

Option three is to put in more troops. A lot more troops. This is the McCain option. It is the only option.

Senator McCain’s recent editorial on sending more troops to Iraq:

  “There is no guarantee of success in Iraq. We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I have recently witnessed, I believe that success is still possible.

  Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it immediately.”

Senator McCain’s full editorial may be found here:

McCain is right. The man is a patriot who is an expert on national security.

And, no one said maintaining an empire was easy. Or pretty. Still want another fast food hamburger fat to chow down in your SUV fat boy?

America asked for this carnage and now we have it. There is nothing left to do but cry. And kill.