Home > Uncategorized > Experts Opposed to the Surge

Experts Opposed to the Surge

More than half of top U.S. foreign policy experts oppose President George W. Bush’s troop increase as a strategy for stabilizing Baghdad, saying the plan has harmed U.S. national security, according to a new survey.

As Congress and the White House await the September release of a key progress report on Iraq, 53 percent of the experts polled by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress said they now oppose Bush’s troop build-up.

That is a 22 percentage point jump since the strategy was announced early this year.

The survey of 108 experts, including Republicans and Democrats, showed opposition to the so-called “surge” across the political spectrum, with about two-thirds of conservatives saying it has been ineffective or made things worse in Iraq.

Foreign Policy, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the experts polled on May 23 to June 26 included former government officials in senior positions including secretary of state, White House national security adviser and top military commanders.

Foreign Policy said seven of 10 experts supported the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Experts have increasingly cited the war as the root cause of what they believe to be U.S. failure to win in its war on terrorism.

Ninety-one percent of those polled said the world has grown more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percent from February.

More than 80 percent of the experts said they expected another September 11-scale attack on the United States over the next decade, despite what they described as significant improvements among U.S. security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

A decade from now, the Middle East still will be reeling from the ill-effects of the Iraq war, particularly heightened Sunni-Shi’ite tensions in the region, 58 percent said.

Thirty-five percent believed Arab dictators will have been discouraged from pursuing political reforms as a result.

Only 3 percent believed the United States will achieve its goal of rebuilding Iraq into a beacon of democracy within the next 10 years.

  1. same old bs
    August 20, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    If it ain’t working then fire up your lazt do nothing congress and get them off their asses and have them cut the funding and bring the troops home…or did you just want to bitch & moan about it? Yea, that’s what I thought!

    The only preople that can do anthing about this is Bush and the congress and right now only one is functioning. You made such a big deal about the “sweep” of the house and senate…so tell me what is differant now that you have both? Your beloved left leaning congress has the lowest approval rating of any congress in the history of our nation! Buck up lil buckaroos and do something! But then we all know you won’t…can’t.

    The real problem you are having is that the surge is in fact working. Oh yes! I can copy-n-paste facts that will prove it 2 to 1 over your moveon and dailykooks BS!

    You hatred and revengeful anger has turned your brains into diseased masses of mud!

    The surge is working and you can’t stand it. It actually drives you crazy!

    Let’s wait for Carl Rove’s book on the greatness of the Bush presidency that will be published before he leaves office. The truth will be known.

    Leave national defense to us. We are much better at it. or pull the funding and suffer another Viet Nam.
    Either way you lose, America and the Iraqi people win and in the end that’s all that matters.

    Rememeber…just because some sorros funded website or lefty loon says it don’t make it true.

    Even Dick Durbin and your precious Brookings Institure admitted the surge is working. Now Dave doesn’t believe his own side!

    In the New York Times renetly (yes dave’s fav copy-n-paste website) were 2 arti9cles providing “duck-n-cover” for the democrats that are taking fatal blows about leaving Iraq niow that we are winning.
    One was an artcle and the other on the op-ed page stating “We can’t leave Iraq now”.

    Relax and have fun libbies! We will win in Iraq and protect you loons at the same time. Go play now while we run a nation and free a repressed people.

  2. Anonymous
    August 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    “More than half of top U.S. foreign policy experts”

    Tell us Dave…who are these “experts”? hmmmm?

    “53 percent of the experts polled by Foreign Policy magazine”

    tsk tsk relying on more liberal BBC crap again?

    “That is a 22 percentage point jump since the strategy was announced early this year”

    says who Dave?

    “former government officials “

    good sources dave! why rely on the current leaders? lol!

    “Ninety-one percent of those polled said the world has grown more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percent from February”

    No shit Sherlock! w era ewinning in Iraq and the muslims are trying to step it up to weaken your backbone. Looks like it worked on the weak hateful lafeties!

    “More than 80 percent of the experts said they expected another September 11-scale attack on the United States over the next decade”

    so let’s pull out now, tuck our tails and wait for them to regroup, amass money and weapons and do their allah work.

    “A decade from now, the Middle East still will be reeling from the ill-effects of the Iraq war”

    so freeking what? What about our 3000+ dead from those goat herders attack on America? Geeeze!

    “Only 3 percent believed the United States will achieve its goal of rebuilding Iraq into a beacon of democracy within the next 10 years”

    3% includes Dick Durbin and the 2 lefty libs from the Brookings institute that say the surge is working along with the New York times…

    You can copy-n-paste crap and it’s still crap! How far off shore will you go dave to find what you want to hear?

    Get real! or get Canada!

  3. Steve
    August 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress.

    Dave why did you not reference codepink too?
    Fair and balanced.

  4. Dave Congalton
    August 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Here’s what the British commanders are telling Prime Minister Brown according to today’s London newspapers:

    Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, “We’ve done what we can in the south [of Iraq]”. Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as “nightly suicide missions” – by the end of August.

    The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to “reposture” the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

  5. Dave Congalton
    August 20, 2007 at 6:10 pm


    Reread the original post. The survey included BOTH Democrats and Republicans and reports that “two-thirds of conservatives” oppose the surge.

  6. Anonymous
    August 20, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    “BOTH Democrats and Republicans and reports that “two-thirds of conservatives” oppose the surge.”

    hmmmm both parties…66.66%

    Then it shouldn’t be hard to name…let’s say…10?

    Don’t count Dick Durbin…he’s on our side! (guess he wants to get reelected!)

    Nobody is buying that offshore copy-n-paste dave…really!

    why not copy-npaste the articles from the Brookings institute and the New York Times?

    Doesn’t fit in with your position? ahhh! Now we got it!

    I’m with Steve! Include Code Pinko, and the dailykooks, and moveon and all those 100% reliable balanced sources!

    LOL! 500 british soldiers! What an insult to our brave men & womnen in the military. But what can you expect from the likes of a sorros worshipper?

  7. Rich from Paso
    August 20, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    And 4 out of five dentists recommend chewing gum after meals

    What is the sample size, Dave? 100% of guys named Rich that live in Paso Robles and blog here believe the surge is working.

  8. Anonymous
    August 20, 2007 at 10:12 pm


    Now that’s funny!

  9. Anonymous
    August 21, 2007 at 12:53 am

    Dave…you’re drowning here!
    c’mon! fess up!
    What survey?
    2/3 of what conservatives?
    we want names! Just like bob wanted the facts, and then when he got em he shut up tighter than a teen home after curfew!…post the facts. We want the facts!

    You are scaring me here. Are you OK? Is this really the best you have? Even your side is saying the surge is working.

    so show us the report? the survey? the facts! Name names! if it’s 2/3rds surely you can name 100 or 200 right? How bout 10?

    I have done as you have asked. I reread the post. But each time I do I have more questions. What you posted has more holes that swiss cheese.

    so what;s it gonna be dave? truth & facts or another copy-n-paste?

  10. the ghost of christmas past
    August 21, 2007 at 1:43 am

    All you need is 1 conservative to oppose the surge and the liberals can say stuff like “liberal and conservative experts oppose the surge”. If one conservative says that it made it worse then all of the 2/3s will say that it has been ineffective or made things worse. The way the media manipulates the language is telling. If they weren’t trying to obfiscate, they would give the numbers in each catagory instead of making generalizations and grouping of catagories. I do believe that the numbers of conservatives truely opposed to the surge is small relative to the 108 sampled, but because they are in the next catagory over in places, the writer groups them in with those that are staunchly opposed to the surge.

    … and there is no bias in the media. My ass.

  11. Anonymous
    August 21, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Ut’s sad that all these really questions go unanswered,

    That speaks volumes in itself.

    Post of bunch of radical left bullcrap and run & hide.

    One guy at least gave bob the facts…Dave is hiding under his desk

  12. NewsstandGreg
    August 21, 2007 at 2:00 am

    Friends of the Truth,

    Take a look at what the boots on the ground tell us. These soldiers have been on the front lines, the “door to door” diplomacy in Iraq.

    These brave soldiers are Buddhika Jayamaha, an Army specialist; Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier are sergeants. Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy are staff sergeants. Seven American soldiers who are serving in Iraq right now.

    They describe themselves as “responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home.”

    Much as many commenters here would wish otherwise, even they don’t think we can “win” someone else’s civil war.

  13. Rich from Paso
    August 21, 2007 at 2:08 am

    Did you all listen to the Democrat Debate on Sunday? Hillary proved me right. She said that it will take a year to leave Iraq. She also made mention the 100,000 contractors that Bob hates will have to be taken out as well. I didn’t mention them, but that brings the total number of people needing out of Iraq to around 400,000. I think she purposefully understated the time it will take to unass Iraq by a factor of three. This allows her to keep the timeline close so as to keep the kook-fringe base of the liberals happy(er) than if she told the truth, but in the ballpark for it taking longer than she stated, therefore not wrong.

    No matter who gets elected president next year, they will spend their entire term as president dealing with Iraq.

  14. we want answers now
    August 21, 2007 at 3:29 am

    “No matter who gets elected president next year, they will spend their entire term as president dealing with Iraq.”

    wow! we’d better elect a muslim then…or at least a half muslim!

    Nice try Greg…so ya found a few “don’t ask don’t tell” best friends that would disgrace their uniform and country!

    Fine…but let’s get back to dave’s inability to provide real facts…real names…

    Greg to the rescue? Not even close!

  15. the ghost of christmas past
    August 21, 2007 at 3:51 am

    Yeah, seven obviously disgruntled soldiers that don’t have a view of the “big picture” are going to say that the war is unwinable. That 7 is a accurate sample size of the more than 150,000. You are going to totally ignore the incredibly high reenlistment numbers that the brigades deployed to Iraq continue to produce, aren’t you? Yeah, those soldiers don’t count because they aren’t speaking out against the war.

  16. hip hop voter
    August 21, 2007 at 4:12 am

    The right ain’t takin it anymore! No more radical left BS!

    We now own the radio airways…soon more!

    We are taking America back with a vengance all based on exposing your lies.

    Get ready for a throwdown punks! You BS party is over!

  17. Rich from Paso
    August 21, 2007 at 5:21 am

    by the way… did you all know that there is only one road that leads out of northern Iraq into Turkey? Yep, it is a two-lane bridge and it is the only one that is capable of holding the weight of our M-1 tanks. That is a main reason why the 101st Airborne was the division chosen to go into Iraq through Turkey, had the Turks let us go that way. There is only one way in or out of Iraq and it is through Kuwait… and the terrorists know this.

  18. the ghost of christmas past
    August 21, 2007 at 6:49 am


    Researchers in Albert, Canada ahve determined that all cats have a very short memory of things they have done just a short while before. The researchers found that cats have a memory that lasts only 10 minutes.

    Who knew? Cats have turned out to be just like liberals with their short memories.

  19. Downtown Bob
    August 21, 2007 at 7:44 am

    to “we want answers now”: No matter who gets elected president next year, they will spend their entire term as president dealing with Iraq. That was written by Rich from Paso, the only Iraq War Veteran commenting here. Can you not even read properly? Or is it that anyone who makes a statement that has truth to it is a threat to you? Jeez.

    Senator Dick Durbin’s remarks explained, again.

    Supposedly liberal Brookings Institute support for surge explained, again If you don’t have the nerve to click on the link, just know that one of the reports authors wrote a book in 2002 claiming that the US needed to invade Iraq; sure sounds like a liberal to me.

    Get a fricken clue; your talking points are not in the realm of reality.

  20. Rich from Paso
    August 21, 2007 at 8:15 am

    Bob: the Brookings Institute piece was really overblown, I agree, but I take issue with the way your are interpretign Durbin’s comments. Dick Durbin did say that the military side of the surge is working, BUT he was disappointed that there was not more progress on the political front. The inference one takes from your comments is that the surge isn’t working on any level, which would be untrue. So, my question: Since the surge is working militarily as Dick Durbin admits, is that not enough of a reason to press harder on the political front in order to achieve the political goals as previously outlined instead of demanding, as every Democrat candidate did on Sunday, for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Doesn’t the demands for withdrawal actually damage the chances that there will be a political success to go along with the military success of late?

    By the way, it was Joe Biden that said that it will take a year, not Hillary. So, my comments should be directed at Biden. Hillary goes back to being a woman that seeks the presidency to slake her personal thirst for power. My mistake… on the Biden quote.

  21. Anonymous
    August 21, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    you are right bob! Truth is not in the realm of reality to those that think with dieased brains.

    Durbin said…deal with ya freeking cry baby!

    The surge is working and you hate it! You’d rather more die so you can be right than to have peace and be wrong.

    but, fact is, you are wrong bob. you and all your lefty loon friends.

  22. NewsstandGreg
    August 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    To: We Want Answers Now

    You dare to insult these men who have served honorably these many months in 110-degree desert heat defending your right to free speech!

    You don’t know how to respect a soldier. You’re too drunk with the kool-aid.

    Chill out. –Newsstand Greg

  23. Anonymous
    August 21, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Greg, you are wrong on 2 counts
    1) It’s 140 degrees in 100lb + packs!
    2) To disrespect your uniform, the commander in Cheif and your nation is NOT honorable

    maybe to a lefty loon with a diseased brain…but not a loyal normal thinking American patriot

    You stand corrected

  24. Rich from Paso
    August 21, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    9/11 report from the CIA says that the two biggest causes of 9/11 were George Tenet’s incompetence in not formulating a comprehensive “get bin Laden and destroy al Qaida” strategy against terrorism and the Jaime Gorelick wall that prevented the sharing of information between the FBI and CIA. The report says that if the FBI had been informed that two of the 9/11 conspirators, one being Atta, were in the country 18 months prior to 9/11, the FBI would have been in a position to possibly prevent 9/11. So there you have it: it was neither Clinton nor Bush’s fault for 9/11, it was Tenet’s and Gorelick’s fault. Why then was Gorelick on the 9/11 commission panel and why did Bush give Tenet the Medal of Freedom?

  25. Diane,Barbara,Nancy,Lois and Harry
    August 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm

    Great point Rich, we will look into it and get answers.

  26. Downtown Bob
    August 22, 2007 at 5:52 am

    Rich: My point about bringing up the Senator Durbin link was that although he did agree that the military surge did seem to getting results (therefore it is having positive results), Senator Durbin also brought up that he did not believe that the “success” of the surge was enough, like you mentioned about his comments on the political situation, Senator Durbin believes Iraq needs more than just a reduction in violence. Yes, yes, yes, the surge is making progress; that does not mean that it is the end all to be all, it is a step, four and a half years after we invaded. It is good news, but why has it taken this long for President Bush to finally start to get something right as far as Iraq goes?

  27. Rich from Paso
    August 22, 2007 at 6:52 am

    A better question is: 1) why is the man who oversaw the failed policy in Iraq for two years, General Casey, now the Army’s Chief of Staff?, and 2) Why did it take so long for GEN Petreus to get elevated to the position he was currently in?

    No one is saying that the surge in and of itself is the answer, but the surge was supposed to give the iraqis the security they needed and the breathing space they needed to fix what was wrong with them politically. Bush has rightly expressed disappointment with Maliki, as he did today. However, if he were to try and oust him, Bush would still be scorned for exercising ‘American Imperialism’ as that kook Gravel did on Sunday and what marilyn has done several times on this blog. Still, to pull out troops now would guarantee that several hundred thousand more Arabs would die as the bloodshed in Iraq spread across the entire Arab world and spill over into increased terrorism the world over.

  28. Diane,Barbara,Nancy,Lois and Harry
    August 23, 2007 at 1:52 am

    We have to change our strategy! The right is winning, we are losing.
    Maybe we could hire Carl Rove. He can get the job done for us…right?
    Our congress is so pathetically in the tank with rating in the low teens!
    Even Bush’s ratings are climbing and with that Iraq report due out soon it may finish us off.
    Should we hurry and raise taxes? Pay more money to liberal teachers? Bankrupt the medical industry in America?
    We are running out of otions…all this hate is bacfiring on us!
    Somebody help!
    Dingy harry
    Nambla nancy

  29. Anonymous
    August 23, 2007 at 2:44 am

    how about say
    dirty hair
    lady nancy
    useless lois
    bitter barbara
    dangerous diane
    viva laraza!

  30. Downtown Bob
    August 23, 2007 at 5:17 am

    So now President Bush is claiming that we need to not forget the lessons of the Vietnam War in our approach in Iraq. I am not a veteran; the apparent gall of President Bush to even mention Vietnam should bother anyone who has ever worn the uniform since George W. Bush did everything he could legally to avoid being sent to Vietnam during his stint in the National Guard (oh wait, did he go awol for more than the time it takes to be classified as a deserter?)
    Irony aside, how twisted is it that President Bush is suggesting that our troops need to stay in Iraq as long as we were in Vietnam? To say that we would subject the Iraqis to a “killing fields” type situation completely discounts how many Vietnamese were killed during the Vietnam war. If we had continued to fight in Vietnam, is it not possible that more Vietnamese would have been killed than happened in the “killing fields”?
    President Bush also claimed that “all is being done to supply our troops with everything they need to succeed in Iraq”; how about supplying MRAPS to our troops? Estimated to have upwards of 3900 in-country by the end of 2007, the linked article points out how the actual number is more likely to be 1500. This is a war effort?

  31. Dave Congalton
    August 23, 2007 at 6:21 am

    My, my, it’s sad to see even the usually articulate and thoughtful Rich fall into the conservative quagmire. He can’t argue with the premise of the study, so he has to attack the methodology.

    As explained in the original post, the survey included Republican, Democrats and leaders from all fields of government. Foreign Affairs is an extremely respected publication.

    So quibble all you want, but your voices remain in the minority and that won’t change, no matter how loud the shrill.

  32. NewsstandGreg
    August 23, 2007 at 7:26 am

    Truth Seekers,

    The soldiers now in Iraq willing to tell it like they see it have spoken:

    “Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)”

    These men are willing to step up the level of discourse and give a view you may not like. I’m sure they don’t like the 109 to 114 degree heat forecast through this weekend, either.

    And they are with all due respect, putting it out in public for us and our response.

    The “not-lib” people (“the loyal normal thinking American patriots”) commenting here do not have an easy answer to this question: how do you “win” someone else’s civil war?

    –Newsstand Greg

  33. Rich from Paso
    August 23, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Okay, Bob, you really need to settle down. Bush did prove that he was legal and not either AWOL or a deserter during the whole Rather-gate document forgery thing a long time ago. National Guard soldiers and airmen are handled differently than active duty soldiers. I should know because I have been both. The National Guard is controlled by the state governor when the soldiers and airmen are not mobilized. The Adjutant General of Texas, or any other state, can very easily allow anyone to either make up training at another time or drill with a different unit. Now the very simple and very believable reason why there are no records of Bush’s service with the Alabama Air Guard is that the National Guard, in all 50 states, is by and large fucked up and incompetent. Don’t get me wrong: there many great wonderful guys and gals serving in every Guard unit across the nation. But as an organization, the National Guard just doesn’t care about the little things like making sure paperwork is done correctly, let alone accounting for a guy that isn’t even in their state’s guard units. Keep in mind that my experience goes back to the late ’80’s and the Guard and Reserves were jacked up then. Can you imagine how ate up the Alabama Guard was in 1973? Just so you know, my interaction with the Guard was off and on for about 20 years. So, for you to automatically buy the talking point that “Bush Didn’t Serve His Time” just means you don’t know the National Guard. Furthermore, my father was an activated Kansas National Guard member and he didn’t go to Vietnam; he went to Fort Bliss, TX. Does that make him a coward? Shit no. My dad put up with more shit going through Boot Camp at Fort Polk, LA in 1966 than any of you non-serving people ever did at that time or ever will. Al Gore spent 6 months in a Saigon hotel. Does that make him a hero? Shit no. How dare you judge anyone who wore the uniform during the Vietnam War when you yourself lacked the testicular fortitude to sign up. Yeah, yeah, you had a low draft number and could have gone… but you didn’t. Just because you were in the line doesn’t equal service or anything close to it. You have a lot of nerve even commenting on things like military service and tactics when you have admitted several times that you don’t know what you are talking about and often defer to my ‘expertise’ (be that as it may) on military matters. I know you only know what you read in the NYT or the dailyKos, but come on…

    As for what Bush said, there is a ton of validity to what he said. When we left Vietnam, the Khamer Rouge murdered 2,000,000 of their own people. When we left Vietnam, millions were forced into “Reeducation Camps” where 165,000 died (which John F’n Kerry, who wounded himself with a 40mm grenade launcher to get Purple Heart #1, thinks wasn’t that big a deal) and millions more were forced to flee Communism. The Vietnamese Boat People were in refugee camps all along Southeast Asia. The United States took in 823,000 of them. When we left Vietnam, the Hmoung were hunted down and murdered in Laos because they supported America and not their communist government. All this because Congress cut off funding of the bombing campaign that would have forced the North Vietnamese to sue for a real peace if allowed to go on for one more month! Yes, in my mind, there are many similarities to Vietnam, that being one of them. The biggest difference is that the military of another country isn’t waging a war against our troops. Oh wait! I forgot about all the Iranian revolutionary guard soldiers and intelligence agents that have been killed or captured inside Iraq providing the terrorist with Iranian weapons and training and the EFPs that have been killing our soldiers. So the similarities with Vietnam are there. One thing is still the same is it is the Democrats that are trying to wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory. Then as it is now, the Democrats are the first ones to want to cut off funding and to force a hasty retreat (any retreat not taking 3 years will be hasty in my book). Democrats look weak on national security because they are weak on national security. As for the MRAPs, the 3,500 (not 3,900) MRAPs were a target not a promise. If only 1,500 solid, well-built MRAPs arrive, that would be better than flawed, poorly built, rush job MRAPs that don’t perform as expected. All you non-military leftists would be blaming Bush for that, too.

    Finally, you say how dare Bush talk about Vietnam. Well, how dare Hillary talk about warfare in general when she married a man that actually wrote a letter telling a man in uniform thank you for getting him out of serving his country in any capacity, and how he loathed the military. This is the same guy that worked for his ‘mentor’ Sen. fulbright, a known racist and segregationist, instead of serving his country in uniform like others were doing. George H.W. Bush was the youngest pilot in WWII, dive bombed a Japanese ship while his plane was on fire, dropped his payload and then bailed out. Even George W. Bush and all the questions about his service at least had the uniform on and served at some point in time in his life. W. never wrote a letter to an ROTC Colonel thanking him for allowing him to be a coward and not serve and how much he loathed the military. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton sure as hell did.

    Dave: When you tell me how many experts on Iraq there are in the United States, both Democrat and Republican, I will tell you the significance of the opinion of 108 experts of “both Democrat and Republican” stripe. I attack the methodology because you all on the left will say anything to shit on a war that is a reality for the next 3 years (or 3 years from whatever date we do decide to retreat under fire). You can site poll after poll and I will come back with “if it is so overwhelming then why don’t the Democrats step up and cut off funding”. Don’t tell me my opinion is in the minority; tell your Democrat elected representatives my opinion is the minority and just cut off funds already… And you know why they won’t. The Democrats don’t want to look weak on Defense during an election cycle. Once again, the Democrats are motivated by their quest for power and how to keep it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: