Here's Pelosi's list of the most important things to do in the first 100 hours of being in control (without comment by me.):

1. Break links of legislators and lobbyists.
2. Enact ALL the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission.
3. Raise the minimum wage
4. Cut student loan interest in half.
5. Push drug companies to lower charges to government.
6. Use federal funds on aborted baby stem cells

Good grief! Did you know that all of those are more important than the war in Iraq, which she said was the most important issue in the campaign but was left off of her list. I'm confused.

P.S. Here's a good quiz:
Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?"

Here's how I did:

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 26%
Fairly well done, fellow patriotic citizen. You have taken a decisive stand behind our dear leader and against the terrorists. However you do not march completely in lockstep conformity, and that is troubling. Steel your commitment to the defeat of evil! Bow in unquestioning loyalty to George Bush! Afterall you don't want to be a liberal, do you?

Posted by Woody at November 12, 2006 01:53 PM

Another terrorist strike against the U.S. similar to 9/11 would be devastating. Besides the loss of life and property the economic impact would be tremendous. Only this year did the company I work for fully recover from the economic impact of 9/11. Another attack would probably have an even greater impact because of the psychological impact of "the terrorists got past our security, no one is ever safe."

The Democratic agenda Woody outlines is "nice" but "nice" doesn't win wars and protect us from enemies. The biggest mistake we've made in Iraq is not sending in more troops and not using enough force.

Posted by DADvocate at November 12, 2006 04:12 PM

Good grief, indeed! I know you guys are ticked off about how the election went but this post is little more than a low-blow. The voting-Democrat-equals-voting-for-the-terrorists argument is just rubbish.

Posted by e. nonee moose at November 12, 2006 07:18 PM

You guys are really in a meltdown.

Posted by reg at November 12, 2006 07:43 PM

The Democrats should be held responsible for what they say, but they are not responsible for the Islamists' self-appointing themselves as their allies. Same for the Republicans vis a vis their self-appointed allies.

Posted by civil truth at November 12, 2006 07:47 PM

The Democrats have been told time and time again, even by bin laden himself that the jihadists prefer a democratic congress most notably before the 2004 election. This time, they held their voices until after the election. The reason? Possibly, nay, probably because they are hoping for a Vietnam style pull out. That the jihadists have been all over the net, Al Jazeera and the arab news trumpeting the democratic victory. Have they said that they hope this brings in a new era of reconcilliation? No! Have they said they are willing to beat their swords into plowshares? No!

I stand behind my argument, the jihadists will now move against america because the truly believe that the Democrats don't have the stomach to stand up to them. And, CT, the democrats are the ones that put that into their minds.

Posted by GM at November 12, 2006 08:28 PM

"And, CT, the democrats are the ones that put that into their minds."

Actually the President and Vice President and their wingnut cheerleaders are the ones that have done their best to put this bit of toxic rhetoric out there in the public square in recent weeks. (Of course, in 2004, Bush was openly endorsed by the al Qaeda group who did the Madrid bombings, apparently because he was such a bungler and poster boy for recruting jihadists, , but never mind...)

Posted by reg at November 12, 2006 08:49 PM

What moose and reg write should be true in a sane world. We should indeed be able to trust opposition parties to also be patriotic and concerned for the safety of the country, just differently. And it does sound fevered and overwrought to suggest that our enemies' rooting for one party means that that party has some culpability for encouraging them.

On the other hand, when I emailed my liberal uncle the William Stuntz piece about what we shoud do in Iraq,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/933jaydy.asp

he replied that all this talk about "winning" and "victory" isn't helpful. And if you think that's a minority, one-off comment by a single NoCal liberal, you might check in on what the Democratic blogs are saying - and what Howard Dean has been saying.

Hoping that the Democrats won't be that crazy because the Democrats you know aren't that crazy isn't a plan.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 12, 2006 08:59 PM

A song applicable to the "new" Democrats, from whom we are still waiting to hear their plan for Iraq:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

Posted by Woody at November 12, 2006 11:01 PM

If you guys hadn't been giving Rummy BJs and whining about critics of the Bush war strategy back when lots of us thought there should have been more troops, I wouldn't find your too-little, too-late quarterbacking quite so ridiculous. You blew it. It's over...Bush gave the terrorists an opportunity to create chaos that was, frankly, beyond their wildest dreams . Iraq is now officially out of our control. The battlefield is too fragmented and complex - it's a civil war that a terrible, weak strategy unleashed. We need to try to regain what we're rapidly losing in Afghanistan. It's your damned fault that it's come to this. Live with it.

Posted by reg at November 12, 2006 11:44 PM

Oh, reg. You and people like you were spouting those same negative things from the very beginning. It's the same old negativity that I've heard over the decades and over different conflicts from the side of the anti-American appeasers and cowards. Perhaps, Iraq is worse because the terrorists knew from history that America's liberals would turn the country against our troops and mission if the terrorists didn't quit.

But, as usual, you spend time talking about what is wrong rather than giving any realistic solutions to solving the situation and withdrawing from Iraq. Let us know when you have figured out that plan. Oh, in the meantime, think about what would have happened if the U.N. was still issuing paper threats to Hussein.

Posted by Woody at November 13, 2006 12:06 AM

John McCain, the current spokesman for winning the war by sending more troops, this morning: "We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months."

His plan, from a couple of weeks ago: "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people," the Arizona senator told reporters after a campaign event for Republicans in New Hampshire's North Country."

So we expand the military by a 100,000 and get 20,000 fresh (as in "inexperienced") troops in Iraq inside of "several months" so we can forstall an impending defeat. He's been shilling for Bush for 3 & 1/2 years and now this is his plan to avert catastrophe ? With seasoned Republicans like these handling our wars the terrorists obviously don't NEED any help from the Democrats....

Posted by reg at November 13, 2006 12:08 AM

"spouting those negative things"

Like the WMDs and "clear and present danger" were hyped, the troop strength was dangerously below what would likely be needed to avert chaos in an occupation, we were overstretching our military and losing focus in Afghanistan, there WAS a growing insurgency, there HAS BEEN a growing civil war, and Iran would be clearly able to pull more out of toppling Saddam than we would. Oh forgive me, Great Woody, for "spouting those negative things."

"Oh, in the meantime, think about what would have happened if the U.N. was still issuing paper threats to Hussein."

For starters, in terms of realpolitik, if we needed to threaten Iran militarily it might actually be credible and the ayatollahs would still be looking over their shoulders at their worst regional enemy. In military terms, we'd be having a better shot at controlling the situation in Aghanistan. In terms of human life, and I have to say, incredibly, given the brutal nature of Saddam's regime...think about it.

Now go back to watching ESPN...

Posted by reg at November 13, 2006 12:21 AM

"Perhaps, Iraq is worse because the terrorists knew from history that America's liberals would turn the country against our troops and mission if the terrorists didn't quit."

Or maybe it's because Condi and Rummy told us for many months that there WERE NO significant threats from an insurgency and apparently planned accordingly.

Hmmmmm....I wonder....who's more responsible for the fact that Iraq is a mess...Liberals or the people who have been in control of the operation since day one. Clearly "liberals".

You're a joke Woody...but not funny.

Posted by reg at November 13, 2006 12:25 AM

reg, the Democrats were for the Iraq invasion before they were against it, and Hillary Clinton to John Kerry were saying the same things about Iraq's threat as Pres. Bush when Pres. Clinton was in office. Perhaps this is a little more "Monday morning quarterbacking" from the Democrats (a term I heard on ESPN) and a "convenient" memory on your part.

Regarding the U.N. and Saddame Hussein, the U.N. proved itself to be a paper tiger, that made the situation worse than better and whose representatives were taking bribes from Hussein, making a diplomatic solution impossible. You have no problem with that.

Maybe we should say that you had your chance and failed. Trying something was better than ignoring the problem for twelve years, as Clinton did. I saw an interview in which Clinton stated that he asked himself this question everyday about terrorists and dicatators: "Can I go another day without having to kill him?" He avoided actions and left the tough choices to the adults who were keeping on their heads and their pants. "Day one" started before Bush got in office.

What would have happened if Bush did nothing? Well, not only Hussein would have figured that the U.S. wouldn't back up its words, but also every other dictator on the globe would see it and act accordingly. You really have no idea how much worse it could have gotten in Iraq and elsewhere. You only look at history as it is (or, how you would like to see it) rather than history that might have been.

We saw your kind of appeasement with the Soviet Union, which dragged out the cold war for decades, and we have seen your kind of turning and running that crippled U.S. influence for decades. Those aren't solutions. They're other forms of avoidance, too.

Guess, what. I challenged you over at Marc Cooper's months ago and here recently to give us your solution of what the U.S. should do in Iraq given the current situation (e.g. stay and win or run and lose.) Tell us what we should do rather than what we should have done.

You have avoided and avoided that question and tried to turn it around, like a child, by asking other questions and saying that you won't give your answer until I answer one from you. Why? Because you have no answer. Because you like to complain rather than help. You put politics above country. You think it makes you look smarter to spout points that you read in left-wing books and propaganda rather than come up with ideas and commitments on your own. reg, you're the joke.

You're a composite of liberal talking points, which only saves me the time of not having to read Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and MoveOn to see how nuts the left can be. You go into rages, type serial posts, start with crude profanity, and go into a psychotic rage at the least provocation or when you're cornered. I would would rather be a bad joke than a bad nightmare. Take some meds. And, don't think that you impress us.

Posted by Woody at November 13, 2006 07:35 AM

This comment was removed because of ad hominim attacks. Cut it out reg or be permanently banned from this site.

Site Administrator

Posted by reg at November 13, 2006 07:49 AM

Note by site administrator: Comment was removed due to excessive use profanity for which he has been warned time and time again. Commenter has been banned.

I wonder why some folk can't argue without cussing and calling people names?

Posted by reg at November 13, 2006 08:16 AM