I am from The great blue hell state of Wisconsin and its my hobby to crush the pun-ky intellects of liberals

Maybe it's time for you to find a new hobby, you know, something you're good at.

12Th grade liberal education here

I had 12 years of public education too, you get out what you put it. Don't blame your "liberal education" for your lack of intelligence. To quote a popular comedian, "You can't fix stupid".

I'm almost speechless.

How can we allow people like that to continue to have the right to vote? Y'know,,,the Constituion is not supposed to be a suicide pact, and all that...

it was you liberals who did went and done your best

You're wouldn't happen to be from the South, are you?

when you write a single sentence that goes on in excess of 12 lines of text, you just might possibly be freaking out.

At least I wasn't the only one immediately struck by the lack of a sentence break.

I must give him credit though, I have never before seen quite to much ignorance and arrogance crammed into a single run-on sentence. Props for tenacity, if not efficiency.

The only thing I would add is that Congress, as is their duty, passed a measure giving continued financial support to the war effort. Last I heard, the President was going the one who was planning on blocking it.

when you write a single sentence that goes on in excess of 12 lines of text, you just might possibly be freaking out.

After Petraeus's first tour in Iraq he wrote a counter insurgency manual in which he stated that between 250,000 and 350,000 troops would be needed to defeat the insurgents.

Actually it's worse than that. Given Iraq's population we'd need 530,000 troops for the ratio he recommends as a minimum. The counterinsurgency manual has a number of other tidbits that all run counter to what we are doing or could do in Iraq. I have a partial list here:

http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1157

After Petraeus's first tour in Iraq he wrote a counter insurgency manual in which he stated that between 250,000 and 350,000 troops would be needed to defeat the insurgents.

The troops he has for the surge can do little more than keep the number of civilian casualties down, but only at the cost of American lives, and will have no effect on the overall drift of the war.

I'm certain if he could he would say this, but of course he can't because his job is not to level with the American people, it's to get this president to the end of his term without having to declare a withdrawal, no matter how many lives are lost in the process.

Except look who is not on the list

Another interesting point, all of those ranked highly by Republicans support the war, yes, but they are also viewed as loyal Republicans themselves. Conversely, all of those considered to be Democrats are also mostly anti-war. So just because pro-war Republicans rank other pro-war Republicans highly, doesn't necessarily mean they rank them highly based on their military record, maybe you just think the people who agree with you are more reliable.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if the list contained anti-war Republicans and pro-war Democrats (not Democrat-leaning independents). Or Democrats with past military experience versus Republicans without.