Unlaughing wrote on June 03, 2007 07:20 PM: This editorial would be smug and foolish even it if it did not go to the disgraceful length of attaching the "D-Vichy" smear to Senator Reid's name. The writers should blush to suggest that the occupant Bush's accelerating assault on American values is admirable, and that spending $124.2 billion to use our troops for target practice is military leadership. Vichy!? The current Republican administration is the kind of mob that would have whistled tunes while heaving corpses into ditches during WWII, but you still dare call Democrats traitors.
Writers like this and their herded followers never blush. They talk about politics and war like drunks in a karaoke bar. No failure, no lack of talent, and no shame will stop them. We can only hope that our electoral system will.

Jo Meyer wrote on May 16, 2007 05:49 PM: This "article" is so clearly biased in favor of the nation's current administrative leaders that to call it good journalism would be just as criminal as the actions of those horrifically lecherous, morally bankrupt leaders. I realize it is an opinion column; however, making declarations of malevolent or deceptive intentions on the parts of Reid or Pelosi implies that you, the writer, have some kind of egomaniacal sense of your own omniscient ability albeit erroneous. Furthermore, if you are going to refer to the portion of the Pelosi-Reid proposal that includes "food" funding for Katrina victims, than you should also provide information of documented evidence that shows how the current administration cannot account for millions of dollars (over $156 million) that were to have gone, to the victims. Why not point out that over $850 million dollars in donations for the victims were refused because those appointed by the administration to be in charge providing rescue and recovery of the victims were too incompetent to know how to use those funds? What about the fact that the FEMA housing currently in use for the victims is ridden with mold and other infectious toxins? Opinions that have any weight or validity should contain a balance of substantive and supported information that directly relates to the subjects about which or whom the opinion is given.

Charles DeGaulle wrote on May 05, 2007 12:15 PM: "Vichy" Democrats. I love it! Very witty. How do you say "treason" in Babylonian?

John O'Neill wrote on May 05, 2007 06:46 AM: "And just to show they're really focused on the war? The new spending bill, like the one just vetoed, will likely contain some $20 billion in pork..."

This is BS. ALL war funding bills up to this point have contained what you call "pork".

"This is good, because (as President Bush has rightly pointed out) announcing to the enemy the date fixed on which you intend to surrender is not exactly a recipe for victory, or even for bolstering your own troops' morale while undermining the other guys."

This is a LIE. You make this statement as if you have devine knowledge of what is to come. We have nuclear weapons; we can still "clean up" Iraq and any other mid east country that gets out of line without killing our own.

NOBODY can support Bush and actually be taken seriously any longer; he no longer has the moral authority to make ANY claim concering our country. He has allowed our nation to be invaded by another nation, there were no weapons of mass destruction...BUSH IS OUR ENEMY! Has ANYBODY figured this out?

David Nowlin wrote on May 04, 2007 06:19 PM: One, I wish I could write that well and two, the accuracy was pinpoint.

tim wrote on May 04, 2007 03:32 PM: I think you just nail the whole playbook of the war game the speaker and the senate leader are playing. Just wish that we are not playing war games

Albert Gaynor wrote on May 04, 2007 02:27 PM: There is a simple fact staring us right in the face, and it is becoming more obvious by the hour: the Democrats are trying to
make a deal with the devil,i.e.sacrificing the good of the nation for political gain.
Senator Reid saying that he would not believe any good news from General Petreus. He doesn't want to hear good news. He knows what he wants and that is to undermine our armed forces to insure our defeat so that he can get more seats
and gain the white house. His problem is
that more and more of the electorate are
on to him with the result that the Democrats will be shamed for a generation.

Steve wrote on May 04, 2007 01:59 PM: Judy Gee proves the fact that "the truth hurts". When faced with the facts, as presented in this excellent article, she lashes out with insults. Typical liberal.....

jcrue wrote on May 04, 2007 01:41 PM: Bravo!

Judy Gee wrote on May 04, 2007 09:12 AM: What a biased, unfair windbaggish bunch of crap this article is. I understand the R-J is ultra-conservative, but even so, this article stands out as so blatantly ridiculous that you do good service to no one, except those you are trying to blast.

Read All Comments