the center for american progress is the prime democratic think tank and fully staffed and supported by the party. to convince yourself that lamont or the party isn't on board with that is to exist in folly. but that seems to be your speciality.

you must cling to your "no plan!" soundbite, but the thing is that it is becoming increasingly clear to the public is that democrats do have a plan to get our troops home. bush's plan, to turn iraq into magichappyland, is increasingly recognized as snake oil.

lamont is with the majority of the american populace, you and bush are on the fringe. enjoy!

Okay, so I have a bit of a plan from a Democratic 507 group and something from Harry Reid asking the President for a plan that he's already been given. Nothing from Lamont. Nothing from the Democratic party. That's three times I've asked and three times you've not answered my question.

Here is my point, write plain so that even you, Jeromy, can understand. You may not like the President's plan. You may not agree with it in any detail. But it exists. That puts him one up on folks like Lamont.

Now, I'm done with you. Go back to your blog and cry to your hundred readers about how mean and cruel I was, okay? My hundred readers are tired of you.

It's interesting that you note a full year has passed since that plan was laid out. That might illustrate to you the key problem: Bush's neocon buddies are *excellent* at dreaming up elaborate theories about war, and complete *shit* at having them match up in reality.

that plan is a pack of promises, boasts, and wishful thinking, with few concrete terms binding the administration. we could be exactly where we are today, or worse, ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road, and they'd have to change about three words in that plan. "We expect, but cannot guarantee…" will continue to echo throughout it. one year later that "plan" has proven to be worth a roll of toilet paper, no more.

george bush is completely detached from reality:
http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/…

if the sunnis and the shiites don't want to get along, a hundred-something thousand of our troops aren't going to be able to stop it.

ned lamont and the democrats have provided the opening for america to escape this clusterfuck that bush and you fellas have unleashed on both our nation and theirs. we will support the iraqis and guide them, but we're going to stop tearing apart our own military and blowing up our national debt in the process. we're going to stop inflaming the muslim world and putting our military weakness on display for all to see. we're going to have a rejuvenated military that will be able to act if we do actually face a serious threat unlike iraq.

but again, jimmie, the point was that you lied about lamont just like republicans have been lying about democrats for five years now at rove's cue shortly after 9/11. when it was time for our nation to unite, karl rove said "we're going to play this for all we can get" and since then the GOP has been utterly unhinged and unbound by the truth. the democrats were behind afghanistan, ned lamont, howard dean, al gore, one after another.

i for one was amazed we didn't drop 500,000 soldiers on afghanistan. it's never made sense from the get-go. we threw a few troops at afghanistan, couldn't get any attractive results, and so the administration took a 180 degree wrong turn into iraq, and threw too few troops there as well. the protests of the pentagon have been squelched by the happy musketeers, bush, cheney and rumsfeld. at every step it's been a strategic blunder, yet it's all been drowned out by claiming criticism means democrats would do nothing.

your blind support of this administration is why the public trusts democrats more on national security now than republicans. you're too busy trying to get elected by lying about your opponents, and we're too busy trying to figure out how to undo your mistakes.

if you want plans, you can see http://giveemhellharry.com/blog/52/the-way-forwar…

or
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/nl/cont…

ned lamont and other democrats are on board with this agenda, and it's one that america can rest at peace with.

Here's a little taste, though, in the form is the President's Strategic Plan on Iraq, wihch I commented on in two separate posts here and here.

Those posts were made in late November, 2005. You're almost a full year ignorant. Well, a bit more than that, but I'm feeling charitable since you seem to be hurting a little bit.

Okay, so I've ponied up a little taste. So tell me, Jeromy, where's Ned Lamont's plan, hmmm? I've asked you twice and still no answer. Got a link? A hint of a link? The ghost of a hint of link? Anything?

Before you show off your scary-good fact-checking-Fu, let me point out that only one person between EricH and I have insulted Ned Lamont and that's me. You owe him an apology and I'm making your future ability to comment here conditional on that apology. EricH has dealt with you in good faith and he has not earned your bile.

One chance to do two things. Answer my question and apologize.

"You make a lot of assertions, here and on your blog. While you’re long on epithets and parroted campaign slogans, you’re mighty short of anything approximating proof."

hey, feel free to start backing up *anything* you've said. you just offered me a campaign slogan and then insisted "but there's more than that!" and offered no comprehensive reply to the positions i put forth that directly answered your questions.

which is par for the course, entirely expected. i'm quite used to paragraphs and paragraphs of claims and assertions about how somebody caught lying doesn't have to talk to the likes of me anymore, but in every case i make sure i offer the last substantive point.

you boys have fun parroting whatever the hell pops into karl rove's mind, but your questions got answered and you couldn't hang. it's that simple. you told a lie about ned lamont and pretend that the question of defending our nation all boils down to whether or not somebody signs onto bush's clusterfuck, but pose as "honest" debaters.

by the way, debate:

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.

2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.

3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

You guys want to gratuitously insult a good guy like Lamont who represents the opinions of the majority of people in this country, and cry when you get your facts shredded. The truth is that Bush doesn't have a plan for dealing with sunni/shiite tension, and has never offered more than pie-in-the-sky hopeful statements. You don't have a single leg to stand on.

Democrats know that we don't have the resources or justification for sitting around Iraq forever. The supporters of this war have gotten *everything* wrong and cannot be trusted to know what they're doing anymore. The Iraqis can handle themselves *if they want to* and if they want war, there's obviously nothing we can do about it, as it is already happening.

So run away, kids. Again, talk all the smack you want, but I'll make the last substantive point. Your side depends on an echo chamber, and you can't handle the disruption of the repetition.

Hey, that's not fair, Jimmie; he never said he wanted to discuss anything. That was my assumption, and my mistake. Don't pick on him for breaking an agreement he never made.

First, you insult someone whom you know nothing about, then you decide that you're going to define all the terms of the "debate" and shift them about as you see fit.

Whether you like the "plan" or not, the President's sound-byte of "We'll stand down as they stand up" is at least a plan. Though there is much more to it – details of which the White House has publicly and freely released to anyone who wishes to peruse it at least contains more than "Bring them home and all will be well" that you're advocating.

You make a lot of assertions, here and on your blog. While you're long on epithets and parroted campaign slogans, you're mighty short of anything approximating proof. Until you can come up with some, I'm done with you.