So, tell me.. If you had your choice of ALL Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, who would you want to write speeches for??

Michale.....

See the "update" I added at the end of the article.

-CW

Senator Reed:"We intend to exercise our constitutional duty and profoundly change our military's involvement in Iraq."

So, things are working in Iraq and the Democrats want to "profoundly change" things...

Leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.. Even in Iraq....

Michale.....

How many of ya'all condemn the barbaric attack on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus by MoveOn.org???

Michale.....

A few short months ago, the Left was castigating Bush for not listening to Petraeus. Now that the surge is working and Petraeus is actually winning in Iraq, the Left is making disgusting personal attacks on the General and saying that Bush SHOULDN'T listen to the General.

Can you explain this inconsistency??

A few short months ago, the Left was screaming and crying about the IHL and how it was "proof" of Bush's ulterior motives. Now, the Left is using the non passage of the IHL as a reason to bash Bush.

Can you explain this inconsistency??

Also, while you are justifying the unjustifiable, perhaps you can explain why, when I continue to point out what a bunch of hypocrites the Democrats are, all you can respond with is personal attacks against me?

Looks like you have a lot of typing ahead of you, so I won't keep you.. Have at it...

Michale.....

Reference the oil in Iraq and Hydrocarbon Law:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/14/2235/46186

You get blue in the face trying to convince me (and yourselves) that the GOP is all evil and bad and the Democratic Party is all goodness and light…
---------------------------

No Michale...

YOU are the one who brings out arguments just to have, time and again, proven to be wrong. You post hyperbole, opinion, and attacks. In return you get verifiable FACT. You then spin in a totally different direction coming up with a brand new argument that, once again, gets proven to be wrong.

When you attack the source as "biased", you are given another source from the MSM. You simply change your argument and abandon the old one like an old tire on the side of the road.

You say that "you are part of the Left", yet, many of your arguments are nothing more than rehashed GOP talking points (many of which have ALREADY been debunked).

You use Karl Rove's very strategy; accuse others of what you are doing... "watch... the Left is moving the goalposts!!!"

Chris posted so many articles above proving his point that it would take a pure hack or a flaming idiot to try and defend any position contrary to the facts, and yet, here you are attacking "the Left" as being wrong... and then you accuse OTHERS of having "blind hatred".

If you were simply ARGUING a position objectively, you would admit when you are, and have been, WRONG. You don't. You simply run to a new argument... a new talking point... a new rhetoric. You run back to "but but Clinton"... "but but Democrats"... "but but". You spin faster than Karl Rove. You cut and run faster than the GOP from Somalia.

Anyone with an IQ above a 6th grader has figured out your game by now.

I didn't direct my diatribe at you personally.. I just found it interesting how "the Left" rallied against the passage of the IHL just a few short months ago is now rallying against it's non-passing now..

You cannot deny that you are part of "the Left", no?? That's not an insult, despite how I make it come out. I am part of "the Left" on many aspects regardless of how it may make "the Left" cringe.. :D

But, you do bring up an interesting aspect that I wanted to expand upon..

Don't you find it interesting how there are so many factions, branches and parts of "the Left" that are constantly at war with each other up to an including the Presidential Candidates???

I mean, yes, sure, you see the GOP Pres Candidates snipe and snip at each other every once in a while.. But you rarely see the type of antagonism between Romney and Guiliani that you see between Clinton and Obama or Clinton and Edwards.. You don't see Right organizations attacking the GOP with the vehemence and aggression that MoveOn.org attacks Democrat Candidates, do you??

Now, why is that???

Further, I fully agree that the Bush Administration has stepped on their wee-wees in promoting the IHL as a benchmark and then failing to meet said benchmark.. The point is conceded and is definitely a strike AGAINST the Bush Administration...

I was just pointing out that it is so hard to get behind the Democratic Party and their position, because, like the bible, their positions change weekly and often contradict their previous positions...

@CDub

I am not blaming the Democratic Party for the Bush Administration's shifting of positions.. I am merely pointing out that the Democratic Party seems to be shifting IT's positions to be whatever is opposite of what the Bush Administration position is. Regardless of the fact that the position shifted to is 180 degrees from the position they held the previous week...

See, that is the problem with people like CDub and Michael Gass

You get blue in the face trying to convince me (and yourselves) that the GOP is all evil and bad and the Democratic Party is all goodness and light...

Whereas, I simply point out (and rightly so) that the Democratic Party is no better or worse than the GOP....

@fstanley

And please show examples where the Democratic Party is any better??

Democratic Party PRO Petraeus THEN
Democratic Party ANTI Petraeus NOW

Democratic Party PRO IHW THEN
Democratic Party ANTI IHW NOW

Can you point to one aspect of the Democratic Party that is "better" than the GOP???

Michale.....

...Stan

I'm not sure who this guy "The Left" you're talking about is, but I've personally been pretty consistent on what I've said about the oil law.

OK, to be fair (much fairer than you're being), there has been a lot of talk about the oil law from the Left being a bad thing. I did not join in this talk, because I have not taken the time to study the text of the law, so I therefore counted myself too ignorant on the issue to have an informed opinion.

I'm not sure how "the Left" is going to react to the story, but you may be right, they may declare it a good thing. You'll notice I took no stance on whether passing it would be a good or bad thing, I merely pointed out the political timeline the White House has been giving it since last summer, and the inconsistencies in their statements. They're hoisting themselves with their own petard, in other words, "good" thing or "bad."

And that, my friend is the definition of "moving the goalposts." The goalpost for passage of this law was originally set 10/23/06 by Tony Snow: "For instance, by the end of the year, there will be a hydrocarbon law." That was over nine months ago. No wonder he doesn't want to prognosticate on it now.

Those are the goalposts that have moved, which was the point of the article, not whether the law itself was good, bad, or indifferent.

But thanks for writing, as always.

-CW

The Left slams the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law as "proof" of Bush's excesses and his meddling and how it is bad for Iraq and the world and it will bring about Armageddon and cause MASSIVE overdue library books...

Then it's failure should be a GOOD thing, right???

But now that it HAS failed, the Left moves the goal posts (AGAIN) and claims that the passage would have been a GOOD thing and beats the Bush Administration over the head with the fact that the IHL **DIDN'T** pass...

Whooooaaaaaaaaaaaa

1984 is alive and well and the Left is running true to form...

Just how many goal posts are the Dems going to move over the Iraq situation????

Michale.....