November 23rd, 2007

Guess who wrote…

…this:

…House Democrats passed an Iraq spending bill that would have required Gen. Petraeus to abort his successful strategy, limit operations to counterterrorism and training, and withdraw all troops by the end of next year. Democratic leaders acted as if nothing has changed in Iraq since January. Perhaps the most charitable interpretation of their initiative is that they knew it would never survive scrutiny by the Senate, which promptly killed it.

It’s a sign of the changing times in Iraq that the passage appeared in an editorial in last Sunday’s Washington Post.

197 Responses to “Guess who wrote…”

  1. patricia o'tuama Says:

    The only thing that has changed in Iraq is that tens of thousands more people are dead, the insurgency is spreading south to the Shia, Turkey is posed to invade northern Iraq, the Green Zone is no longer safe, even more members of the “Coalition (smirk) of the Willing” have withdrawn their troops, our soldiers and National Guard are even more over-extended and a number of generals who were stationed in Iraq have come out against the war, some quite loudly. But I guess what they think is irrelevant, huh.

    The things that haven’t changed since the surge are the hundred plus terrorist attacks every day, the ongoing refuge crisis as hundreds of thousands more Iraqis flee their country to escape the fighting, and the stealing from the American people by Halliburton et al.

    Oh, another thing that hasn’t change is that there still isn’t a regular supply of electricity or clean water for all but a few people.

    Yep, things are going just great in Iraq, couldn’t be better. But it is a true measure of Neocon policy — a bunch of incompetent thugs trying to force other people to do their bidding while stealing their oil. Democracy at the point of a gun is not democracy.

  2. Laura Says:

    Absolutely!

    But, you won’t here that here. There is no “compassionate conservatism” for the 4 million who have fled or the hundreds of thousands who have died.

    All you will hear on this thread is

    “but we’re WINNING”, even though they cannot tell you what “winning” is…the generals have said there is no military solution in Iraq, only political.

    Yet, they seem really quite happy to have the status quo politically while our soldiers die, the Iraqis die, the debt becomes astronomical and the oversight that was lacking for 6 plus years is hampering the mission.

    It’s opposite world here.

    Good response to the post.

  3. Tim P Says:

    Neo,

    Gee, I don’t know what planet patricia o’tuama has been on recently, but back here on planet earth, it would appear that things in Iraq have been looking up substantially of late.

    Denial is an amazingly powerful thing. However, facts are even more stubborn and all of the ‘progressive’ talking points won’t change them, no matter how often they’re repeated. (Who said lefties weren’t religious?)

    As for the WaPo, and others in the MSM and the democratic party, reading your post reminded me of the old saying that ‘victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.’

  4. Tim P Says:

    Sorry to pile on, but…(I just couldn’t resist)

    I just had to add this little fact to better rain on patricia o’tuama & Laura’s denial-trollathon,

    More than 300,000 Shiite Muslims from southern Iraq have signed a petition condemning Iran for fomenting violence in Iraq, according to a group of sheiks leading the campaign.

    from that neocon bastion of propaganda, the Washington Post.

  5. Trimegistus Says:

    Patricia, Laura:

    Where’s the liberal compassion for Saddam’s victims? Or the thousands killed by Al-Qaeda? Any compassion for them at all? No? Only terrorists killed by American soldiers get any compassion from liberals, apparently.

    You realize you are monsters, don’t you? You are. You sympathize with sadistic murderers and torturers. You want to abandon the Iraqi people to torture and death at their hands. You applaud when they kill Americans, and weep when American troops defeat them. You encourage them to keep fighting, keep killing, keep torturing. This is not compassion, this is evil. This is what you want.

  6. Tim P Says:

    Gasp! But wait! There’s more…

    The Times Online reports that large numbers of refugees are returning from Syria to Iraq. “The numbers are certainly large enough, as we report today, for a mass convoy to be planned next week as Iraqis who had opted for exile in Syria return to their homeland.”

    Damn refugees. Don’t they know that they’re screwing up ‘the narrative’?

  7. Laura Says:

    Indeed, after years of seizing on every positive development and complaining that the good news wasn’t being adequately conveyed, American military officials now warn against excessive optimism. “It’s never as bad as it was, and it’s not as good as it’s being reported now,” said Army Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, chief of strategic operations for U.S. forces in Iraq.

    On the diplomatic side of the Iraq equation, U.S. officials said they realize time is short. “We’ve got six months because the military is leaving,” said one official.

    Okay folks, where is BUSHCO and their political solution? Since we already know there isn’t a military one?

  8. Laura Says:

    Cause really, the bottom line is, the US wants to be needed, wants to be the enabler.

    God knows what would happen if those Iraqis actually stood up on their own. Like every good enabler, they just might not be needed anymore.

    That’s and expensive habit to quit.

  9. Occam's Beard Says:

    Rubbish.

  10. Sally Says:

    You might start to wonder why “Military Family” Laura has turned herself into a sort of one-person spamming machine fairly recently (with a little help from pat), but I think the answer is fairly obvious. They too can see that the MSM is starting to turn against the very position that they’ve invested so much of their time, energy, and fervent hope into promoting — which is that all is lost, just leave Iraq to the terrorists, and pull all our troops home (and leave them home! ). Like any fanatic, no amount of contrary evidence could ever dent their “true belief”. But the obsessive flurry of posts is almost certainly a reflection of a rising desperation — that what really might be lost is their smug assurance that the cut-and-run option will carry the day in the nation at large. Sadly for them, and unlike them, most people are able to adjust to changing realities.

  11. Tap Says:

    It’s kinda sad. Remember back when “Military Family” Laura pretended to be a conservative (while exclusively espousing liberal ideas)?

    I can even remember when she agreed to drop her ‘invinceable cloak of moral authority’. That lasted about 5 minutes. Apparently, as the sole surviving member of a military family, she had to don the cloak again.

    Oh well. Be sure to tell us what ‘all the military families’ think again, Laura. Somebody may not yet be aware.

  12. Laura Says:

    Care to guess what the generals in Iraq fear the most over the next 6 months? They are actually quite anxious that the downtick in violence will encourage the 3 million refugees back into Iraq without the numbers of US troops there to help preserve the little success that has been seen.

    Of course you all still think that, contrary to all the generals in Iraq including Patreaus, that there is no military solution or victory in Iraq.

  13. Laura Says:

    Of course I expect nothing more than what you’ve pushed on this site and other con blogs. That’s the way it is.

    You again forget that the troops have completed their mission. The objectives were clear. Remove Saddam and rid Iraq of WMD.

    No WMD and Saddam is dead. At what point are you going to realize that the Iraqis will need to define their own identity and map their own course? And, you still haven’t responded to the dirty little secret of the Iraqi Oil Law and why it was constructed by Big Oil interests in the US and why the law was crafted so that it only favored outside oil companies.

    That make you feel patriotic and caring for the poor Iraqis that you often patronize as “defeated nations”?

    Your sentiments truly make me ill.

  14. Sally Says:

    L: They [the generals in Iraq] are actually quite anxious that the downtick in violence will encourage the 3 million refugees back into Iraq without the numbers of US troops there to help preserve the little success that has been seen.

    Hey, way to keep hope alive there, Laura! Okay, I guess you had to admit that there might be a “downtick” in violence, and that maybe, allegedly, there’s been a “little” success (wince), BUT — you can still look forward to snatching defeat from the jaws of … well, I don’t even want to say it. I mean, there’s certainly no reason to think you haven’t read the minds of every single general in Iraq accurately, is there?

  15. KBK Says:

    They knew perfectly well it wouldn’t pass the Senate. They walked away without providing funds for the military. The Petagon is now finalizing plans on cutting back vital services starting in January, I believe.

  16. Tap Says:

    Read the minds of each general in Iraq? Why wouldn’t she have? She’s already told us what the troops think, what the military families think, what WE think, what the Taliban thinks, what Al Quaeda thinks, what Iraqi’s think, what the Iranians think, what you think, what neo-cons think, what Bush thinks, what…

  17. Sally Says:

    Your sentiments truly make me ill.

    Yeah, I can see that. It’s pretty sick to hope that Iraq might emerge as “the least troubled nation of the region in a decade’s time“, as a result of the invasion. And pretty cool the way only you and a select few fellow illuminati have been able to work out that Big Oil conspiracy — wow! But have you looked into any links to Big Mac? I think I read somewhere that MacDonald’s is going to get the exclusive fast food franchise for the whole country! I mean, those poor, poor Iraqis! US out of Iraq!!

  18. truth Says:

    In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says

    http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8353901

  19. Cappy Says:

    At least this blog keeps Laura and ilk from doing stuff in real life.

  20. Laura Says:

    Involuntary extensions:

    Involuntary Extension Assignment Incentive Pay
    To qualify for the Involuntary Extension Program for Iraq the following must happen:
    • Soldiers must be serving in a unit in Iraq
    • the unit must be specified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to
    continue to serve beyond their scheduled 12 month deployment
    • and including staging time – served 12 consecutive months or 12 months within a
    15 month period
    If all of these prerequisites are met, the deployed Soldier would qualify for an
    additional $200.00 from of Hardship Duty Pay (HDP-T) and $800.00 from
    Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP).
    The additional $200.00 HDP is separate from the original HDP deploy entitlement of
    $100.00 service members already receive.
    The servicing finance unit in theater will compile a list of soldiers who qualify for the
    additional money and send it to the 266th Finance Command (FC). The 266th FC will
    then verify the list and send to DFAS for entry to the soldiers’ master military pay
    accounts.
    The unit must create a blanket DA Form 4187 for those members who meet the 12-
    month minimum requirement. The DA Form 4187 must state “I acknowledge
    that my extension beyond 12 months is involuntary, and
    therefore, I agree to accept Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP)
    of $800.00 for any month or/and portion thereof that I am
    extended in Iraqi beyond my scheduled rotation date of
    August ____, 2006.” The attached listing must be validated by the first field
    grade officer, MAJ and above, in the chain of command. The field grade officer must
    check the “has been verified” box on the form and sign it.

  21. Laura Says:

    B. PROCEDURES: SOLDIERS IN PARA 5A(1) WILL HAVE THEIR ETS CHANGED
    TO 24 DECEMBER 2031

    C. COMMANDERS WILL CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE SOLDIERS TO REENLIST OR
    EXTEND. SOLDIERS WHO REENLIST AT ANY TIME DURING THE INVOLUNTARY
    EXTENSION WILL HAVE THEIR ETS DATE CHANGED TO THEIR ACTUAL ETS DATE
    AS A RESULT OF THE REENLISTMENT

    D. SOLDIERS IDENTIFIED IN PARA 5A(1), WHO ARE ENROUTE TO OR AT
    TRANSITION CENTERS (TC) AWAITING SEPARATION OR REFRAD WILL BE HELD AT
    THE TC, PENDING DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH PARA 10C AND 10D.

    Google Stryker Brigade Alaska to see that half of the unit returned home, while the other half was in Iraq. The unit was told after the half that had left and just landed in Alaska to awaiting families that they needed to get back on a plane and head back. Murkowski delivered a rather passionate speech on the Senate floor about her fears for what the stop loss is doing to our military. Murkowski is a Republican, who one day prior voted against Webb, as did many republicans.

  22. Tap Says:

    Involuntary extensions.

    Is Laura suggesting that anyone who signed up was under the impression that as a member of the military they would only have to do those things they volunteered for? Pulease.

  23. Laura Says:

    A soldier writes about supporting the troops:

    “Some law student emailed me while back with some questions, and after it was all said and done she told me she supported the troops. And I know a lot of people share that sentiment and it’s all really warm and fuzzy and whatnot, but honestly, I just rather you run out, sign up and catch the early-bird charter to Kuwait and get your ass over here ASAP so one of us can go home. Maybe we can arrange something, you know, by ones and twos and so on, pretty sure we could get all us over-extended types outta here in no time.

    We got, by estimates, close to forty-thousand plus Joes involuntarily extended, stop lossed they call it now, cause dropping INVOLUNTARILY extended day after day after day I suppose places too much emphasis on the fact that a whole buncha us got stuck in the shit INVOLUNTARILY… cause, for all you non-incarcerated types, the usual nomenclature for being stuck in the service beyond your time is–used to be–INVOLUNTARY extension. Cept they had to twist the rules all outta whack and shit to keep the machine all lubed and oiled and chugging and belching and churning out the mayhem, and somehow, rather mysteriously it seems to me at least, with all that good ol’ troop lovin’ shit goin’ on back home they couldna find the 40K + dudes and dudettes to get us squared away and outta this mess. Thanks for the love yo.”

  24. Sally Says:

    cappy: At least this blog keeps Laura and ilk from doing stuff in real life.

    It’s the flypaper strategy all over again!

  25. Laura Says:

    and the rest

    “And I know I know, spare me the retort… “Dude, is what you signed up for.” Right. I signed up for THIS. Sadist’s circus. Marquis de Sade’s Head-Chopping Ball-Blasting Brigade. Lemme assure you, if I had read some short-timer’s Internet lament and that fucker would’ve had the common decency to point out that the Army is more like a three-ring circus butcher-shop motor vehicles prison typa clustertastrophy I mighta thought twice before lending my body to the cause of someone else’s mocracy-buildin’ wet dreams.

    If I ever make it outta this mess, when I make it out, I’ll make sure to support the troops likewise. I’ll realize my lifelong dream of washing up in a yuppie burb and my kiddies just done wrap up their SATs in high style and Stamfurd or Princetum are in the works and I’ll kick their fuckin’ asses if I ever even catch ‘em looking sideways at anything related to the military. Them having other priorities and shit and their talents being needed elsewhere and whatnot. Of course, we’ll all support the military all the time. Course. We’ll be havin’ yellow ribbon shit on all our stuff, little flaggies everywhere and yonder, and we’ll smilingly fork over that good tax shit to support the state’s burgeoning quest to keep us all safe from evildoer motherfuckers. If I ever see a legless vet with a board around his neck all ‘Help a homeless Iraq veteran’ I’ll be first to toss some quarters at the dude. Battle bros for life and all. And if I read about a couple-a-thou of the troops being INVOLUNTARILY extended, or stop lossed, or held over, or stuck in the muck, or jacked, or whatever they call it by then, I’ll be all supportin’ the troops and lamenting their sad tragic fate and misfortune. Maybe slap on an extra couple-a-yellow ribbons. Show support ya know.”

  26. Laura Says:

    “And If I could, I’d come to ‘Raq for Christmas. Come out there with a key and hand it to the first civilian I saw and say, “Here, here’s your country back. We’re going home now. Watch out for those dictators, man. Good fuckin’ luck.”

  27. Laura Says:

    Casey is not alone in his assessment. Several current and former Bush administration officials have publicly warned for several months that current troop levels cannot be sustained past next summer due to strain:

    Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]

    Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]

    Army Secretary Peter Geren: “[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]

    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]

    Casey, who was formally the top military commander in Iraq, appears to be hoping his blunt assessment will push the Bush administration to change its military policy. In a “highly unusual move,” Casey requested the public hearing, apparently hoping to attract more attention to the issue of the depleted armed forces.

  28. Tap Says:

    ooooooooooo. Laura’s found an anonymous soldier with a bad attitude to quote.

    Guess what, Laura? You can find a guy with this attitude in any war. You can find a guy with this attitude in any boot camp. You can find a guy with this attitude in any college. You can find a guy with this attitude on any McDonald’s crew. You can find a guy with this attitude upstairs in his bedroom railing against his mom and dad.

    So what’s your point?

    Is the fact that the word ‘involuntary’ is used in the term involuntary extensions your problem? Sorry that’s messing with your head. Did you know that every time a soldier washes dishes in the mess hall, it’s involuntary? I’m willing to bet you that almost EVERY single dish is washed by someone who would rather not.

    Does the fact that he now has to wash dishes he no longer wants to wash negate the fact that he signed up for the military? Is it therefore no longer a voluntary military?

    I’m sorry you are naive enough to think this way. An army can’t work the way you apparently envision it.

  29. Tap Says:

    Laura, if you are going to continue to cut & paste so much, you should attribute the work to the author.

    Not to mention picking only a few paragraphs from the middle of an article without noting what you are doing is misleading and confusing.

  30. Tap Says:

    You also might want to keep in mind that wholesale cutting and pasting of other people’s work onto someone else’s blog isn’t exactly good form.

    Neo has thoughtfully provided a place for conversation and debate, but I doubt she intended it to be a place for someone to show off their cut & paste skills.

  31. Laura Says:

    It does challenge your “support the troops” spin doesn’t it? What does that mean? Support the mission? Have no regard for the FACT that we have a draft now of all of those who volunteered, did their duty and are now told they can’t get out?

    Is that democratic or coldly, just the way it is?

    The mission was clear, remove Saddam and the WMD. Mission accomplished. Now what? You all seem to be quite okay with ten plus years of this. But who to shoulder the burden, the mission? Of course, the all volunteer army will do it right? Wrong. You fool yourselves if you think this is a good policy. It makes you far less safe.

    Misleading and confusing? Have you sought this information yourself, or are you quite happy in the reality that you’ve created for yourself?

  32. Talkinkamel Says:

    Tap

    Oh, yeah, I just love it when Laura displays her incredible mind-reading psychology powers! She knows exactly what everybody in the US is thinking!(“The US wnats to be the needed, wants to be the enabler.”), and her powers of foresight, when she tells us exactly what the Iraqi generals are going to be doing.

    She’s a combination James Bond/Sigmund Freud.

  33. Laura Says:

    Hmm, I just wonder how many soldiers and families of soldiers also support this? Care to guess?

    11/23/2007 11:02:24 AM Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, a former top U.S. commander in Iraq, is throwing his support behind Democrats’ effort that would provide war funding but would also force the White House to begin withdrawing American forces from the war-torn country.

    “The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country,” Sanchez said in remarks to be aired Saturday for the weekly Democratic radio address.

    “There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result,” said Sanchez, who was in charge of combat operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.

    The Democrats’ legislation would authorize $50 billion for the Iraq war but sets the goal of Dec. 15, 2008 as an end to combat operations. The proposal cleared the House, but foundered in the Senate amid a Republican-led filibuster.

    “The funding bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, with a bipartisan vote, makes the proper preparation of our deploying troops a priority and requires the type of shift in their mission that will allow their numbers to be reduced substantially,” Sanchez said.

    In October, Sanchez said the U.S. mission in Iraq was a “nightmare with no end in sight.” He also called Bush’s decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Iraq earlier this year a “desperate attempt” to improve the situation in Iraq.

  34. Laura Says:

    Here you go Tapp

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=879eba2a-a4c8-473e-8ed5-7fd8d5570566

  35. Occam's Beard Says:

    Here’s Laura’s source.

    The “concerned dimwitted mom” talking about “military families” is now but a memory, replaced by the dimwitted wholly unoriginal leftwing activist parroting MoveOn talking points.

    I’m not sure which is more of a nuisance, actually.

  36. Laura Says:

    Certainly Occam. Would you like more links?

  37. Laura Says:

    Step outside the bubble just a bit and read this:

    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000809.htm

  38. Laura Says:

    News flash — The White House has selectively edited a report on Iraq, taking out negative information and distorting the report’s meaning.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=politics&id=5739472

  39. Tap Says:

    “It does challenge your “support the troops” spin doesn’t it?”

    uhhhh…..no.

    …”the FACT that we have a draft now of all of those who volunteered, did their duty and are now told they can’t get out?”

    You might consider that a draft if it represented a change in rules or if those who volunteered were not told of the possibility of that happening before they signed up. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, that’s just not the case. They know when they sign up that this is part of the deal.

    “Is that democratic or coldly, just the way it is?”

    Who or what EVER gave you the impression the military can be run on a democratic basis?? In what universe could you possibly imagine that working? I can just see it. Who wants to do dishes tonight? Would anybody like to volunteer for PT? We’re hoping some of you will choose to work out tomorrow. If anyone would like to go on tomorrow’s mission, try to let me know.

    It would be stunning if I thought you actually believed that, but I don’t.

  40. Laura Says:

    “You might consider that a draft if it represented a change in rules or if those who volunteered were not told of the possibility of that happening before they signed up.”

    Actually it is nicely burried in the fine print. And, it is burried within the language of “declared war or national emergency” the first never being declared, you can’t declare a war on a verb and the state of emergency was lifted. Where does that leave us? With boots to fill. Too bad suckers! Right?

  41. Laura Says:

    “combat operations” are over right? Mission accomplished? Did we declare war on Iraq?

  42. Occam's Beard Says:

    OK. It’s the addled leftist activist parroting MoveOn talking points that’s more of a nuisance.

    Thanks for the tiebreaker.

  43. Talkinkamel Says:

    I am impressed by Laura’s mind reading abilities.

    I somehow doubt she’s “military family” though.

  44. Sally Says:

    M-F Laura: Would you like more links?

    You bet. A Google search on Iraq turns up 22 million + links, so cherry-picking through that should keep you busy for a while. Imagine the comment threads you could dominate, though!

  45. Laura Says:

    Actually, I already “vetted” myself to Neo months ago. She assured me that she would keep that info private. I’ve already been down the “i doubt you are a military mom” road before remember?

  46. Laura Says:

    Sally, I have a better idea and one for all of you. Find a local FRG group (family readiness group). Even if you don’t live near a military installation, there is likely a guard or reserve post near you. Call them; if you like, you can tell me your general locale and I can connect you with one of these individuals.

    Actually go and talk to these families who either meet a few times a week or month. Talk to them. Hear their stories.

    I am not a bleeding hear liberal. I am just a mom. And, yes I am angry. I am angry at the policy that is hurting our ability to respond to other threats and what the Iraq conflict is doing to our soldiers and their families. I am angry when people like you seem to think it’s okay that our military is treated this way, and that somehow “they get what they deserved by voluneering” spin. These are american citizens who served their time and can’t get out. That’s just wrong.

  47. Xanthippas Says:

    The Washington Post has almost always supported prolonging the mission in Iraq. This is really no change. If they NY Times were to write this that would be something, but they haven’t.

  48. Xanthippas Says:

    You might start to wonder why “Military Family” Laura has turned herself into a sort of one-person spamming machine fairly recently (with a little help from pat), but I think the answer is fairly obvious.

    Yes it is. Because it obviously drives you guys crazy not to sit here and pat each other on the back about “leftists” and “traitors” and Democrats “rooting for failure.” I’m sure Laura, as she appears to be sincere person, is actually trying to convince you of the rightness of her position. I however simply take pleasure in dismantling the weak and simple-minded arguments of others.

  49. jimfocus Says:

    It’s called the back door draft, many of our forces are nearing total exhaustion by the measure of nearly every non-neocon military analysis–the overall issue for most Americans, I dare say, is that the the last 4 years have been a fiasco (that’s a good book, too) & the ME is far more unstable than 6 years ago by any measure–Iran less dangerous? Syria less dangerous? Turkey is not blowing up over the Kurds? Afghanistan stabilized? Pakistan? The coalition of the willing has turned unwilling–Poland’s leaving. Serious damage is being done to the US in the world economy. If the surge results can be maintained, then let’s forge ahead w/ what Patreaus said was the standard for measuring success of the surge–can the Iraqis still hammer out a political solution to the sectarian crisis that still grips the country? Hey, I hope they can do it, but I remain skeptical of this policy. The last few years’ futility shows we went into the wrong country, & have bungled into a far worse situaton. Also, the US military is reaching a breaking point, withdrawals are going to happen no matter what’s going on in Iraq in 2008. BTW, the Post (at least the one I get emailed to me everyday) has generally supported the war. They’ve attacked the mismanagement & the profiteering, but I forgot, you neocons don’t care about that stuff if a war is going on. People need to make money, right?

    “I nearly clocked him…”
    –conservative & novelist Tom Clancy talking about almost decking Richard Perle (neocon & war profiteer w/ Trirene, never served), after Perle sniffed that Colin Powell was a wuss for worrying about troops dying.

  50. Xanthippas Says:

    Does the fact that he now has to wash dishes he no longer wants to wash negate the fact that he signed up for the military? Is it therefore no longer a voluntary military?

    Well, you know the guy at McDonald’s can actually leave his job without worrying about going to prison. The soldier cannot. So yeah, it’s a little less voluntary. After all, if soldiers could just quit when they got sick of fighting useless wars, that might keep us from fighting them and we can’t have that, right?

  51. Xanthippas Says:

    You realize you are monsters, don’t you? You are. You sympathize with sadistic murderers and torturers. You want to abandon the Iraqi people to torture and death at their hands. You applaud when they kill Americans, and weep when American troops defeat them. You encourage them to keep fighting, keep killing, keep torturing. This is not compassion, this is evil. This is what you want.

    No, this is what you wish people who oppose the war felt. That makes it easier for you to simply dismiss them. If you accepted the fact that people who oppose the war wonder what the long-term goal of the occupation is and how we’re supposed to get there, or greet five years of uncertain war with rational skepticism, or worry about the effects of the war on our national security and standing in the world, then you’d have to actually try and convince them of the rightness of staying, which is much more difficult. Easier to assume the worst, condemn them, and pat yourself on the back for being more noble and patriotic. Problem of course is…it ain’t true. The truth is you’re just not as thoughtful, or you’d see these problems for yourself.

  52. Xanthippas Says:

    Actually, I already “vetted” myself to Neo months ago. She assured me that she would keep that info private. I’ve already been down the “i doubt you are a military mom” road before remember?

    I’m sure you have. The first thing people like this prefer to do when faced with difficult arguments that won’t go away, is attack the person they’re arguing with. It suits their mean spirit and simple minds, and it’s easier than actually thinking about the arguments you put forth.

  53. Occam's Beard Says:

    I am just a mom.

    Oops. Spoke too soon.

  54. jimfocus Says:

    Neocon & SuperHawk Honor Roll

    Dick Cheney–Did not serve (DNS)
    Richard Perle–DNS
    Eliot Abrams–DNS, Almost Served In Prison (AISP)
    Scooter Libby–DNS, ASIP
    Douglas Feith–DNS
    Tom DeLay–DNS, Will Serve In Prison (WSIP)
    Mitch McConnell–DNS
    Rick Santorum–DNS
    Karl Rove–DNS
    Bill Kristol–DNS
    Paul Wolfowitz–DNS
    Newt Gingrich–DNS
    Jon Kyl–DNS
    John Cronyn–DNS
    Saxby Chambliss–DNS

    Special Award:
    Rusty Limbaugh–DNS, WSIP?

    “The management of this war has been an abysmal failure.”–Alphonse D’Amato

  55. jimfocus Says:

    “…Please let us lose! Please let us lose!…”

    “…Go insurgents go! Go insurgents go!…”

    –jimfocus chanting for catastrophic defeat for America earlier today

  56. Occam's Beard Says:

    Do you support gay rights?

  57. jimfocus Says:

    “Go gay rights! Go gay rights!”

  58. Occam's Beard Says:

    So you have, of course, gone to the bathhouse and “socialized,” I take it. Otherwise, how could you support gay rights?

    And how could you support any member of Congress, if you haven’t been a Congressman?

    Obviously you couldn’t have supported Bill Clinton (notably absent from your list), unless you too had dodged the draft, gone to Oxford, and been governor of Arkansas.

    Did you support your wife in childbirth? How could you, if you hadn’t given birth yourself (pace Laura)?

    You see the point. It’s a silly argument, but apparently appeals to the liberal’s passion for identity politics.

  59. Sally Says:

    X: Because it obviously drives you guys crazy not to sit here and pat each other on the back about “leftists” and “traitors” and Democrats “rooting for failure.”

    But you are rooting for failure (without scare quotes), aren’t you? I mean seriously — what if the US (and Iraq) were to actually succeed (also without scare quotes)? And what if such success were actually to begin to make a difference for the better, throughout the region? Wouldn’t that demolish your whole, increasingly fragile belief system? Yes, I think it would.

    See, this is actually just entertainment for us — I really think it’s you lefty losers who are going a little crazy.

  60. jimfocus Says:

    Hi Occam
    re: silly issue

    If its such a silly issue why did you spend so much time constructing nonanalagous examples, pretending you don’t get the point? You know perfectly well what I’m talking about, which puts me in the company of such silly people like Patreaus, Powell, Shinseki, Zinni, the JCOS, Ike, Patton, Einstein, etc. It’s why Clancy wanted to smack the arrogant, glib out-of-touch Perle (who never served) down to the ground. Nothing quite rounds out your life’s experiential base for making life-threatening decisions like having a gun pointed at you and fired, and vice-versa–take my word for it. If you never put yourself in that situation, and never will, be at least a little more humble and circumspect about lives that are about to be lost. Also, any gung ho pro-war conservative, 18-32, that refuses to volunteer for Iraq (there are apparently millions of them) is simply a 5 star phony. Oh, it’s the point when it comes to who decides to go to war & who actually does.

  61. jimfocus Says:

    re: fragile belief system

    I’d be thrilled and surprised if it all works out, in the meantime I’m not going to be blind and not realize the disaster unfolding throughout the region. Why do you think the surge came about? Becauses of the heavy criticism of the war strategy up to then– criticism which you neocons complained about. You know, skepticism used to be a cornerstone of conservatism.

  62. Ymarsakar Says:

    Have no regard for the FACT that we have a draft now of all of those who volunteered, did their duty and are now told they can’t get out?-L

    You must be refering to Stop Gap. What Bush has to do with this policy that has been effective for long before he was ever in power, is something only Laura and her hate knows.

  63. Ymarsakar Says:

    cause dropping INVOLUNTARILY extended day after day after day I suppose places too much emphasis on the fact that a whole buncha us got stuck in the shit INVOLUNTARILY… cause, for all you non-incarcerated types, the usual nomenclature for being stuck in the service beyond your time is–used to be–INVOLUNTARY extension.

    You can almost hear the axe grinding going on, Tap, Talkin, Occam.

    I suppose if Laura reads and talks to people like this, she deserves to get depressed and her spirit broken. You can only be cheerful and optimistic around such people for so long.

    Other people that are around these kinds of folks have a different attitude just because.

  64. Ymarsakar Says:

    In a sense, there is a strict philosophical motivation that leads people to prefer optimism over being morose and also to lead people to prefer being morose over being optimistic. It is a difference of philosophies and priorities. If you prioritize certain things above other things, you get the axe grinder. Who, for whatever reasons, cares about getting out the military. And doesn’t particularly care whether he gets out because you took his place or not. His unit won’t need him or his expertise, you see. So you might as well do for a good replacement.

    If such folks are annoyed at these reminders of civilian support, then I’m sure there are plenty of Marines and SF and other military folks that would welcome such comments from Americans. There is nothing that the American people can do about the government policy on STOP Gap. Remember KELO? There are strict limits on the power of individual Americans, without Presidential and Congressional support. It is the price of a Republic. Some people don’t like that. The difference is, some people try to fix it while others simply complain about it not being already fixed.

  65. Occam's Beard Says:

    Where to start…

    First, I knew perfectly well what you were referring to, and made no pretense otherwise. I simply reject your point as risible.

    Second, my examples are precisely analogous, and address your implicit point, viz., that only those with corresponding experience are entitled to an opinion, or specifically to express support (criticizing is A-OK, however; DU, DailyKos, and HuffPo have scarcely a kind word for the troops).

    Third, why did you omit Clinton? He’s by far the most egregious offender vis a vis not serving and putting troops in harm’s way (e.g., the Balkans, where they are to this day). The others may not have served, but IIRC did not actually go out of their way to dodge the draft.

    Fourth, think. Limiting public discourse to veterans would seem to be a galloping start on fascism (and before anyone (?) asks, the privilege would not extend to family members).

    Further to this last point, since only a veteran can be President, because only a veteran can justify sending troops into harm’s way, McCain is our only choice. Osama, Clinton & Co. should withdraw now, right?

    The argument is juvenile, and meretricious.

  66. Ymarsakar Says:

    I however simply take pleasure in dismantling the weak and simple-minded arguments of others.-X

    This may be just me, but I find that pretty hilarious given the reality of X’s misuse of logic and other tools of reason.

  67. Ymarsakar Says:

    Oh, yeah, I just love it when Laura displays her incredible mind-reading psychology powers!

    That’s why she avoids arguing with me, Talkin.

    Is the fact that the word ‘involuntary’ is used in the term involuntary extensions your problem? Sorry that’s messing with your head. Did you know that every time a soldier washes dishes in the mess hall, it’s involuntary? I’m willing to bet you that almost EVERY single dish is washed by someone who would rather not.-Tap

    Since that is not a priority to Laura, Tap, I don’t think it will change anything really. If a person wants to get into the military and then wants out because he doesn’t like it there, can you convince him otherwise? Maybe, but it would probably take money and some reforms. But you can’t convince him to shift his priorities elsewhere. That, cannot done. At least, not legally.

  68. jimfocus Says:

    It’s called a “back door draft” by the troops, who are apparently full of Laura’s hate.

    “America Surrender! America Surrender!”
    –jimfocus practicing liberal dogma this pm

  69. jimfocus Says:

    Risible? You mean you got some of the humor in the post? Even at my expense? I guess that’s OK.

    I don’t remember making all those arguments you want to assign to me. I’ve never been a big Clinton fan, may have been a mental block. No I think my point is well put, so Einstein, Ike, Patton Powell are also silly and juvenile (hope we aren’t drifting back into name-calling)? Again, referencing the Perle-Clancy incident, many of these gung-ho neo cons in the Bush adm (who are largely gone now) had over the top frat boy naivete about war, and that may have been tempered by actually serving, or seeking the counsel of a great man like Powell, rather than belittling and insulting him–get the point now? Not so many mistakes (which were monumental) may not have been made. Still can’t agree? (I do enjoy your posts, btw)

  70. Occam's Beard Says:

    We need to think clearly, and express ourselves clearly. I characterized the argument as silly and juvenile, not the person(s) proferring it.

    Big difference.

  71. Sally Says:

    jimf: Why do you think the surge came about? Becauses of the heavy criticism of the war strategy up to then– criticism which you neocons complained about.

    No. The surge came about because the war strategy up to then wasn’t working — it’s called being flexible. And the criticism that not just “we neocons”, but people of good will complained about wasn’t the rational sort directed at war strategy to that point — many neocons were themselves critics of that sort after all — but rather was the MoveOn sort that was intended to undermine any war strategy at all. Yes, Jimmy, there really are “America Surrender!” lefties out there (see, e.g., the Pilger quote from an earlier neo post)– and making common cause with them just makes you one too.

  72. jimfocus Says:

    Sally,

    You mean I’m a fellow traveler? Yeee Hah! I’ve always wanted to be—but I digress…

    “If your mommies a commie, then ya got to turn her in!”

    What an understatement! The…war…strategy…up…to…that…time…wasn’t…working?!?! And who in the world thought up the war strategy that wasn’t working, let’s see, wait a minute–could it have been–the neocons!!! I think so. Remember, it was Rummy and the DOD neocons, the Perles on the DAC, that mocked Powell and Shinseki about the actual number of troops needed? McCain (who hated the young smart-mouthed neocons) was also ignored. More troops in Bagdad was adopted late by the neocons(what was left of them) to wipe the egg off their collective faces. Oh man, you guys have me doubled over today, I’ve got tears coming down my face–keep it coming neocons–you’re the gift that keeps on givin’.

    “Yeeeee Hah!!”
    –Slim Pickens, Dr. Strangelove

  73. jimfocus Says:

    “Surrender is the only option!”
    “Surrender is the only option!”
    “America must lose! America must lose!”

    jimfocus practicing for his DailyKos Hate America Super Secret Cell meeting tonight in his STL neighborhood. All comrades welcome.

    “Yeeeee Hah!!”

  74. jdgjtr Says:

    I am a Navy vet and made two Med cruises, both of which were extended to cover the 82-83 Lebanese peacekeeping mission . I extended my hitch for a year “at the request and convenience of the government”. Growing up in Norfolk, most of my friends were children of sailors and Marines whose fathers were constantly extended during Vietnam. This isn’t new. It is a war, like it or not and warriors know this when they sign on. Did I beef? Yes, but to tell you the truth, I liked being off Beirut better than my last duty station in Texas.

  75. Sally Says:

    I think this might be jimmy’s notion of humor, but if that’s the case he’s got the mental age of a ten year old. Or, of course, it might just be that he, like so many of his ilk, has cracked.

    No matter. I think we can safely say, at least, that apart from hee-haw, he has nothing more to contribute.

  76. Sally Says:

    You know, maybe he actually is a ten year old. That would explain some things.

  77. Occam's Beard Says:

    Let’s see, members of the armed forces bitching, flawed strategies, bumbling, stupidity, incompetence, lost chances, miscalculations, confusion…must be a first in the annals of warfare.

    I loved neo-neocon’s Robert E. Lee quote:

    It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

    “Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the
    Cause by writing editorials – after the fact.L

  78. Laura Says:

    Poland and Australia pulling out of the “coalition of the willing”.

    Who’s left.

  79. Laura Says:

    “Conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who has been “one of President Bush’s staunchest allies,” suffered “a humiliating defeat” in national elections Saturday when the oppositional Labor Party wrested majority control of parliament away from Howard’s coalition by a 53% to 46.7% margin. Labor Party head Kevin Rudd, who is likely to replace Howard as prime minister, “has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia’s combat troops from Iraq.”

    GOOD GOD! THE WHOLE WORLD IS TURNING LEFT!

  80. jimfocus Says:

    Hah! You guys are sounding verwy gwumpy today, the personal attacks are escalating…classic signs that you are being out-debated….where are your arguments, running dry!

    Yeeee Hah!!

    P.S., cell meeting @ 9 tonight, pass word is swordfish

  81. Laura Says:

    and now from poland

    “The new leadership under a liberal coalition government replaced the conservative nationalist government of former Prime Minister Kaczynski that endorsed the deployment of Polish troops in Iraq.

    During Tusk’s election campaign, he advocated the withdrawal of Poland’s forces in Iraq. Officials of the government expect Tusk to provide further details on the pullout later this week.”

  82. Ymarsakar Says:

    I loved neo-neocon’s Robert E. Lee quote:

    You should have seen what Sherman said about reporters.

    To counter Laura’s spin, since she won’t put up a fair fight, here it is.

    I’ve just returned from a week in Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus and his operational commanders. My intent was to look at events from an operational perspective and assess the surge. What I got was a soldier’s sense of what’s happening on the ground and, although the jury is still out on the surge, I came to the conclusion that we may now be reaching the “culminating point” in this war.

    The culminating point marks the shift in advantage from one side to the other, when the outcome becomes irreversible: The potential loser can inflict casualties, but has lost all chance of victory. The only issue is how much longer the war will last, and what the butcher’s bill will be.

    Link

    # Laura Says:
    November 24th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Poland and Australia pulling out of the “coalition of the willing”.

    Who’s left.

    This has nothing to do with improving American security and policies. But it satiates the hate reflex, so there is that.

    There is something particularly wrong about others enjoying what they see as bad things happening to those that they hate. It is funny, but it is still rather unsettling.

    Big difference.

    Not to him, Occam.

    The argument is juvenile, and meretricious.-Oc

    That is rather obvious.

    Here’s some Jefferson quotes about the press you might find funny, Occam

  83. Occam's Beard Says:

    Poland and Australia pulling out of the “coalition of the willing”.

    Who’s left.

    Cause for great celebration, huh? Let us know when you finally figure out that this increases the chances that your son’s tour in Iraq will be extended.

  84. jimfocus Says:

    You know, you may think this is 10 year-old stuff, but the many Kubrick and Marx Bros. references are flying right over your collective heads–whoops! I’m sorry I used the word “collective.” Omigod, I’m going to be called a commie again…

    Yeeee Hah!!!

  85. Laura Says:

    There is no military solution for Iraq, only political. While the surge has created a little more breathing space, virtually nothing has happened on the political end, the point for the surge in the first place.

    HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT OUR BRAVE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO HOLD THEIR FINGER IN THE DIKE? AS LONG AS IT TAKES?

    The American people will not allow that to happen and the troops will come home, sooner rather than later. We are doing everything we can to help them to move it forward. If they don’t then they lose, not us.

  86. Laura Says:

    The countries pulling out of the coalition only hammers home to the American public that “other people” get it and we are a little slow on the uptake. It actually reinforces exactly what I am talking about, and it raises the impatience level in this country.

    About time I say. We will not stay there forever and the political work better start, and quick, or there are going to be many many investors who will lose their money right?

  87. jimfocus Says:

    The neocons’ anger and frustration is obvious, you guys going all the way back to Tecumseh Sherman? BTW, I live right across the street from his first house here in STL, but few know it’s his first house.

    “War is hell…there’s nothing glorious about it.”
    –Sherman

  88. Laura Says:

    It isn’t funny at all that they are leaving. It’s a reality however.

    What is it going to take for you, YOU to wake up?

  89. jimfocus Says:

    Laura, don’t be to concerned, the coalition really was the Brits and us, all the others were pitifully small units. Soon, all the Brits will be gone. What do they get that these neocons on this thread don’t get?

  90. Tap Says:

    Perhaps Laura’s little boy doesn’t always tell her everything.

    It is most certainly not “burried (sic) in the fine print”.

    I’m sorry that YOU apparently didn’t know it.

  91. jimfocus Says:

    Ha, the level of hatred on here is actually so over the top it’s funny. For a bunch that’s so cocksure that they’re right their posts are brimming w/ insecurities and projected bigotry. Lighten up alittle, hope some of you have Milk of Mag. or something, just kidding, heh heh.

    Well, I’m off to the Super Secret hate America meeting, it’s our annual planning session, we’ll be working on how to give aid and comfort to Iran—we expect to be very busy this next year. bye

  92. Tap Says:

    It’s perfectly clear to Laura that anyone who shows signs of agreeing with her ‘get it’ while those who disagree are ‘a little slow on the uptake’.

    What’s it gonna take for us bumbkins to ‘get it’?

  93. Sally Says:

    It’s true that the Aussie’s turned out a party that had held the government for the 2nd longest period in Austrailia’s history — and that the new PM is to the left of the old. But let’s do a little cut-and-paste job of our own:

    A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ‘similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line.

    The new P.M. is likely to go Howard’s way on foreign policy, too.

    Kinda makes “THE WHOLE WORLD’S TURNING LEFT” look a little overwrought, wouldn’t you say? Of course, since the surge looks, even to the antagonistic MSM, as though it’s working, American troops will be able to pull out slowly now as well. Not quite in the defeated, cut-and-run style so many of the comrades have been hoping for, but that’s no thanks to the Democrats (with a few noteworthy exceptions). It’s largely thanks to Bush’s steadfastness in fact.

  94. Laura Says:

    “It’s largely thanks to Bush’s steadfastness in fact.”

    Largly to Bush’s arrogance and stubborness that we are so to say “stuck” between a rock and a hard place.

    Largly to Bush’s willingness to put into play a plan for Iraq that should have been augmented before it started, but no, PNAC won out and lost in the long run. Shinseki anyone?

    Largly to Bush’s ego that he couldn’t admit that his war was a failure before it started and thousands of lives lost.

    It will be the American people that will end this war by not allowing it to continue.

  95. harry9000 Says:

    Laura:
    “There is no military solution for Iraq, only political. While the surge has created a little more breathing space, virtually nothing has happened on the political end, the point for the surge in the first place.”

    “Breathing space” she says. An acknowledgement that (1), the surge is working., (2) that the condition tody is desirable to what it had been in the recent past, and subsequently, desirable to what would happen if we leave before the political solution might relieve the need for a military one.


    HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT OUR BRAVE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO HOLD THEIR FINGER IN THE DIKE? AS LONG AS IT TAKES?”

    Yes, as long as it takes. Rebuild the military to a comfortable 14 divisions, pull us out of Kosovo, a place that really doesnt need us. (where’s the EU?), rotate units often with lengthier intervals between combat rotations, but yes, we stay there as long as we’re needed.

  96. Laura Says:

    Bush admininstration officials are admitting that they are giving up on political progress on Iraq and focusing instead on convincing Americans to throw more money at the problem and with time hopefully more political progress will be seen. What?

  97. harry9000 Says:

    Laura:
    “throw more money at the problem and with time hopefully more political progress will be seen. What?”

    Funny, usually to a liberal, the amount of money thrown at a problem is of no concern. Now that this is “Bushco’s” problem, we suddenly want to be fiscal conservatives at the same time, rant about the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence.

    How is that a moral position to support? It isnt.

  98. Occam's Beard Says:

    I’m beginning to pull for the dullard “mom” to return. Never thought I’d type those words.

  99. Sally Says:

    Largly to Bush’s arrogance and stubborness that we are so to say “stuck” between a rock and a hard place.

    No, just the opposite in fact. It’s not that Bush hasn’t made mistakes, of course — so, after all did Abe Lincoln, so does everybody. It’s that he decided on a long-term strategy to attack Islamism in its heart, and has held to that through trials that would have sent lesser men running (e.g., Swift Boat Kerry). And now, even some of his harshest critics — excluding the hard-core fanatics, of course — are reluctantly having to admit that his course may be paying off. Hard gruel for the comrades, of course.

  100. jimfocus Says:

    Liberals like to throw money around…

    Uh, you guys been keeping track of the debt the GOP piled up the last 6 years, and you don’t mind?

    Also, the name-calling really escalating, it’s late in the day and you’ve been decisively defeated here today, clear sign of overwhelming defeat.

    Lose America lose!
    Lose America lose!

    “Yeeeee hah!!”
    –Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles

  101. PSGInfinity Says:

    My, my, my.

    That article really hit close to home; you can hear it in the howling. I think it’s quite telling, jimfocus, that we’re quoting Lee ans Sherman while you’re quoting a filmmaker and a comic*. It’s also telling you’re unwilling to properly punctuate your quotes. Laura, they WILL be there as long as it takes. It’s called “war”, and that’s a fundamental tenet. And while we’re throwing quotes around, here’s another:

    “War’s Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace.”
    – William Tecumseh Sherman

  102. Tap Says:

    “Uh, you guys been keeping track of the debt the GOP piled up the last 6 years, and you don’t mind?”

    Who said we don’t mind? Conservatives DO mind, or did you not see recent election results? Spending is but one of the problems conservatives have with the GOP of late.

  103. Occam's Beard Says:

    Bottom line: liberals/ leftists/ Marxists/ socialists/ communists/ whathaveyouists are on the wrong side of history. Their trajectory is taking them inexorably to the same destination as anarchists and monarchists: the ash heap of history. They sense it (few among them have the intellect to grasp it consciously), which drives the frantic thrashing to influence events, any events, before they become totally irrelevant.

    The future will be free, democratic, and capitalist. There’s nothing they can to change that; the best they can do is try to slow progress toward it.

  104. Laura Says:

    “They sense it (few among them have the intellect to grasp it consciously), which drives the frantic thrashing to influence events, any events, before they become totally irrelevant.”

    So the left is responsible for the events in Iraq? The lack of political progress, no oversight and massive cronyism and corruption?

    Now that’s just ripe! Nobody needed to push it over a cliff. It was heading there all along and sadly you are going over the cliff with it.

  105. Laura Says:

    “It’s that he decided on a long-term strategy to attack Islamism in its heart, and has held to that through trials that would have sent lesser men running ”

    Sally, Islamism? In Iraq? Do you recall that they are a pretty secular society? And, didn’t we go into Iraq for WMD or are you okay with that trumped up excuse to go “after the heart” of Islamism?

    You really are grasping Sally…and gasping.

  106. Laura Says:

    “that the condition tody is desirable to what it had been in the recent past, and subsequently, desirable to what would happen if we leave before the political solution might relieve the need for a military one.”

    They breathing space is a very very temporary measure and cannot be sustained if the political solution doesn’t follow in tandem. When the millions decide to come back from Jordan and Syria and the political solution is not under way, we are likely to see a more intense and bloody civil war ensue. And, just where are we in that little scenario? Right in the dangerous middle.

    As long as it takes will not be sold to the American public. America is more than ready for Iraq to stand up on her own.

  107. Occam's Beard Says:

    Get off Iraq. I’m talking about the long term historical trend, as all grownups doubtless appreciated.

  108. Laura Says:

    might just be too little too late. no more blank checks for more of the same. when the tide turns, so will the ability to force a withdrawal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1195948833-q%20wNYsUae3zKogJ4cvQ%204g&pagewanted=print

  109. Laura Says:

    Occam, look around. The whole world is swinging left and it will swing right again as well. It’s the way it is.

  110. Occam's Beard Says:

    I’ll take that bet. NY Times? Couldn’t find a link to Pravda? I forgot – it’s under new management.

    Socialism (and collectivism generally) is the philosophy of the loser, for whom it exerts a siren call. It exalts the loser, and tells him that his losing is not his fault, but that evil _____ (fill in the blank) are responsible. If that blank is filled by capitalists/ the First World/ America/ corporations, the result is international socialism (aka communism). If the blank is filled by Jews, or other ethnic group, the result is national socialism.

    The collective is defined by who’s in, and who’s out, the latter being blamed when collectivism inevitably fails.

    The world isn’t swinging left; the twitches you’re seeing are its death spasms.

  111. Ymarsakar Says:

    Now that’s just ripe! Nobody needed to push it over a cliff. It was heading there all along and sadly you are going over the cliff with it.-L

    Right. Nobody needed to push those reporters off those buildings in Russia. They jumped by themselves.

    Do you recall that they are a pretty secular society?

    Tribal not secular.

    They breathing space is a very very temporary measure and cannot be sustained if the political solution doesn’t follow in tandem.

    The UN and international whatevers are not a political solution. Nor is peacekeeping in Kosovo.

    Laura obviously has been indoctrinated with all that New York Times and newspaper info she reads. Those things will turn anybody against the war, if they read them exclusively.

    Democratic socialism, what we see in Europe, hates fascists. The fascists hate the communists and the communists hate the socialists for being too capitalistic. Ultimately if any one of those three gain power, then the other two will be purged. The fascists don’t like socialists because socialists aren’t violent enough and the communists… well Hitler already went over that. The communists would rather link up with the fascists to attack socialists, but in the end fascism is just too world dominating violent for the communists.

    Socialism is a system that uses parasitism to survive. The stronger the host, the stronger the parasite. The weaker the parasite makes the host, the more likely the host will be eliminated by fascism and other foreign bodies.

    This triangle geometry always pits one leg against all the others. One side against all other sides. It is why MoveOn and Kos sometimes don’t like the Democrats. And why Chavez is alternatively hailed by the Left and disliked, but not criticized, by the Left. Once Chavez takes a stance in the socialism, fascism, communism triangle, the other two will try to eliminate him.

  112. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left and the anti-war folks that want to get out of Iraq think that they can refine war down to their specifications and needs. They need to get out cause it is dangerous, you see. Such things called war are too dangerous to stay in for a sustained period of time, so the logical choice for the Left is to get out. Also it is not as if war ever solved any Leftist problems. That’s a fascist problem solving method that the socialists were never able to truly master. Democratic socialism uses emotional violence and creation of chaos to obtain power. Nothing like the National socialism preference for assassination and coup de tats. The Communists loved re-education camps full of political prisoners.

    You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.-Sherman

    You see, division in Iraq is good for the Left. Weakening other people simply makes the parasite stronger. Up until the host dies of course. But that won’t be for a long long time.

    Laura still has not recognized the authority of the President of the United States. Such sentiments will always cause her to be against American foreign policy until she recognizes that the President has the authority to do what Laura cannot.

    You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.-Sherman

    As you can see, the Left wishes for those fighting against slavery and chaos to admit that war was “begun in error” so to speak. It is not the Sunni “freedom fighters” that they want to admit that their resistance was foolish and based upon pride. It is not the Shia factions that the Left wishes to reconcile with the status quo. No, the Left wants those fighting for liberty and security and unity to admit that they began this war in error. Not the rebels, never the rebels. The rebels are the good guys to the Left.

    Laura will appeal the hardships of war. To infinity and beyond.

    If Iraqis become slaves of Iran or the terrorists, well that’s okay with her.

    We don’t want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.-Sherman

    A round a bout way of saying “surrender or we’ll break your stuff”. Vis a vis Iraq that would be more like “do what we tell you to do or else you will never get rid of us or Al Qaeda”.

    You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better.-Sherman to Laura

    But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.-Sherman

    Laura’s factionalism will never bring peace except the peace of the defeaten.

    But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.-Sherman

    When the Arabs surrender and stop this Jihad, then we will have peace. Then we will protect them as we protected Japan and Germany before them. Even France. Jihad not going to stop with the army here in the US, however. And that’s a good thing for the parasites.

  113. Sally Says:

    Laura: … we are likely to see a more intense and bloody civil war ensue.

    But what if we don’t? I know you’re banking on that, Laura, but what’s your exit strategy if the “bloody civil war” you’ve been prognosticating doesn’t happen? Hmm? What if, of all things, it’s Bush who’s vindicated by events, and your new-found lefty pals who are left in the, to use their phrase, the “ash heap of history?

    Maybe it’s time to switch topics — how about climate change? Fiscal policy?

  114. stumbley Says:

    Laura, we’re not asking for info about your “son” in the military, just what “he” thinks about the conflict. So far, you have resolutely resisted giving any answers to that question.

    You aren’t a liar, are you?

  115. jim rice Says:

    Wow, you guys are really good w/ the putdowns on this site, especially when you don’t have a valid argument. In fact, I’ve encountered my very first punctuation snob ever, right here! As a former reporter & editor I’ve encountered numerous insufferable grammar snobs, but never a punctuation snob! Yo, now, ya’ll got me trippin’, Quotations Dude–I’ll be up in ya’ll face, hear? Word. I also noticed that Quotations Dude failed to mount a valid response to what I actually said. You know, self-satisfying smugness seems to rank high w/ some of you, but doesn’t impress me one bit, so you lose dude. In fact you cons lost today, you got, what’s the word? Slaughtered. That’s it, you guys got slaughtered by the America haters. We won, America lost today. Oh, one thing Quotations Dude, you’re over-punctuating your post, gives the reader too many “eye lashes” (did ya see da quotes dere?) which detracts the reader from your point, which I think was smugness. Also, you don’t have to use qoutation marks if you set the quote off from your main text and give proper attribution, like this example:

    Yeeeeeee Hah!!
    –Slim Pickens, in…well, he really said this in all his movies.

    Now doncha be hatin’, hear? Later.

  116. jimfocus or jim rice Says:

    Go cons go! Go cons go!
    Hey you neocons
    Whaddya say?
    Who ya gonna bomb today?

  117. bunkerbuster Says:

    Wow! Bravo Laura!

    I applaud you for keeping your cool and answering the junior high ad homenem with a battering ram of facts and analysis.

    Very interesting reading and I’ve learned a lot from it. Thanks and keep it up!

    You’ve got poor Occam’s Beaver muttering Ayn Rand for Dummies boilerplate about socialism, fer chrissakes. If that isn’t totally powerless surrender, what is?

    And I’d like to thank jimfocus as well for letting me know about the Super Secret Hate America Network. I’ll see you at the elite cell convocation at Keith Olberman’s elite liberal mansion!

  118. Xanthippas Says:

    The Left and the anti-war folks that want to get out of Iraq think that they can refine war down to their specifications and needs. They need to get out cause it is dangerous, you see. Such things called war are too dangerous to stay in for a sustained period of time, so the logical choice for the Left is to get out. Also it is not as if war ever solved any Leftist problems. That’s a fascist problem solving method that the socialists were never able to truly master. Democratic socialism uses emotional violence and creation of chaos to obtain power. Nothing like the National socialism preference for assassination and coup de tats. The Communists loved re-education camps full of political prisoners.

    Y, this only proves you read nothing that anyone who disagrees with you writes on this blog. I-and others-have repeatedly explained why we believe we should get out of Iraq, and you demean those viewpoints by saying that weak liberals simply want to get out of it because “war is dangerous.” To believe such a thing is extraordinarily stupid; to say such a thing is extraordinarily dishonest.

    As for the rest of that paragraph; it’s simply incoherent.

  119. Xanthippas Says:

    I’ll take that bet. NY Times? Couldn’t find a link to Pravda? I forgot – it’s under new management.

    Socialism (and collectivism generally) is the philosophy of the loser, for whom it exerts a siren call. It exalts the loser, and tells him that his losing is not his fault, but that evil _____ (fill in the blank) are responsible. If that blank is filled by capitalists/ the First World/ America/ corporations, the result is international socialism (aka communism). If the blank is filled by Jews, or other ethnic group, the result is national socialism.

    The collective is defined by who’s in, and who’s out, the latter being blamed when collectivism inevitably fails.

    The world isn’t swinging left; the twitches you’re seeing are its death spasms.

    It’s difficult to find a single comment that sums up the right-wing mindset more than this one. First we have a major media outlet equated with Pravda, a tool of communist propaganda. So media bias, check. Then we have liberalism equated with socialism and collectivism, so hyperbole, check. Then we have the psychological projection that implies that it’s liberal that go looking for enemies, when of course it’s the right that needs and outside enemy to function (liberal traitors, communists, terrorists, the French, etc., etc.) And finally we have a basic misunderstanding of history and politics and a wish as an assertion, as Western society has only clearly grown more liberal with each passing decade.

    Welcome to the right-wing mindset, where up is down and there are enemies in every corner. It’s a depressingly paranoid and hostile universe to reside it.

  120. Xanthippas Says:

    But you are rooting for failure (without scare quotes), aren’t you? I mean seriously — what if the US (and Iraq) were to actually succeed (also without scare quotes)? And what if such success were actually to begin to make a difference for the better, throughout the region? Wouldn’t that demolish your whole, increasingly fragile belief system? Yes, I think it would.

    If they succeeded, that would be great. I for one am still somewhat skeptical about the proposition, and since I don’t turn my skepticism meter down to zero whenever somebody says “terrorism” or whenever I see Bush on TV, I think I’m taking the appropriate approach.

    Also, seeing as how the terrorists who are actually looking to kill Americans are busy rebuilding themselves in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I’m not going to go around cheering just because conditions are improving in Iraq. So forgive me if don’t engage in the triumphalism that’s so evident on this blog just because things are only as bad in Iraq as they were in early 2006 and 2005. When right-wing war hawks can explain to me how we’re supposed to win the “war on terror” without somehow discussing Afghanistan or Pakistan, then maybe we can have a real conversation about these issues.

    And since my belief system is not premised on ignoring wholly critical areas of national security and foreign policy, perhaps it’s yours that I would characterize as somewhat fragile since it depends entirely upon success in Iraq (success being whatever you say it is, of course.)

  121. Xanthippas Says:

    Get off Iraq. I’m talking about the long term historical trend, as all grownups doubtless appreciated.

    The long-term historical trend in the West points to the triumph of liberalism. Certainly this is true in America, which is a less racist and discriminatory country than it was in the past. Even when you refer only to liberal policy, it’s clear that this nation is becoming more liberal, as things such as universal health care are only a matter of time. The truth is conservative always have and always will look to the past, and most of them must be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Only if you believe that communism/socialism and liberalism are the same can you possibly think that liberalism is not ever advancing itself, and frankly conflating the movements is a rhetorical trick among right-wingers, and not the argument of an actual grownup.

  122. Ymarsakar Says:

    As a former reporter & editor

    That explains a lot actually.

    Also, you don’t have to use qoutation marks if you set the quote off from your main text and give proper attribution, like this example:

    I do believe I have just heard Jason Blair’s style of attribution.

    I-and others-have repeatedly explained why we believe we should get out of Iraq, and you demean those viewpoints by saying that weak liberals simply want to get out of it because “war is dangerous.”-X

    Does that then mean you support the troops by wanting to put them in more dangerous situations? Stop loss anyone?

    It’s difficult to find a single comment that sums up the right-wing mindset more than this one.

    Given that Occam summed up the con game that is the Left, I suppose that would be the appropriate reaction, X.

    First we have a major media outlet equated with Pravda, a tool of communist propaganda.

    Socialist propaganda in this case.

    Then we have liberalism equated with socialism and collectivism

    You actually think that your people have anything whatsoever to do with furthering classical liberalism? I would believe that post-modern liberalism, so called fake liberalism, would be part of your beliefs, but never classical liberalism.

    Then we have the psychological projection that implies that it’s liberal that go looking for enemies, when of course it’s the right that needs and outside enemy to function-Xan

    Given that the Left sees the “right” as being part of the same spectrum as Hitler, that says a lot now doesn’t it. It was national socialism that needed an outside enemy as well as a domestic one to gain power. But they only gained this opportunity through socialist turmoil and crashing of the economy.

    When you realize the Triangle of Death geometry, then Hitler is no longer on the right and thus the right no longer needs external enemies. That, however, is not a philosophy the Left will ever believe in.

    as Western society has only clearly grown more liberal with each passing decade.-X

    The end of history as a former neo-con said and wrote.

    It’s a depressingly paranoid and hostile universe to reside it.

    I suppose we will find more Constitutional paradise and peace in international agreements, Xan. You first, though.

    So forgive me if don’t engage in the triumphalism that’s so evident on this blog just because things are only as bad in Iraq as they were in early 2006 and 2005-Xan

    Only classical liberals cheer human progress, wherever it is. Your brand of “liberalism” simply cheers for what benefits yourself, which is not what benefits anyone else.

    And since my belief system is not premised on ignoring wholly critical areas of national security

    I thought the US Constitution was more important than national whatevers to you, Xan?

    The long-term historical trend in the West points to the triumph of liberalism

    That must mean Fukuyama was part of Xan’s clique to begin with. That makes things easier to decide about all those “former neo-cons”.

    No need for violence and dangerous wars, you see. “Liberalism” and decadence will triumph if we just wait awhile for the rot to seep in.

    Certainly this is true in America, which is a less racist and discriminatory country than it was in the past.

    You somehow pretend that racism decreased not due to war and the Civil War, but due to some kind of inevitable historical trend. Unfortunately for fake liberalism, that was simply propaganda designed to create useful tools out of guillible cannon fodder.

    The truth is conservative always have and always will look to the past, and most of them must be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

    That is what the socialists said before Hitler purged his socialist allies.

  123. Sally Says:

    I for one am still somewhat skeptical about the proposition [that the US and Iraq are succeedng against the Islamists],…

    Good for you — for the record, so am I. The question, though, is where do one’s hopes lie, and who gets one’s support. And from the manifest and grisly relish that various lefty blogs, forums, media, and commentators take in every reported American/Iraqi setback, the begrudging reluctance in admitting any American/Iraqi success, I conclude that their hopes and their support are not with this country nor with the people of Iraq who are also struggling to rid themselves of the butchers in their midst.

    Pakistan and Afghanistan are indeed other sources of concern, as is Iran, as I think you acknowledge. But that just points out the fact that the struggle is a global one, with a number of different theaters, and with different degrees of success or failure in each of them at any one time — as was the case with other global struggles in the last century. And while concern about such theaters is entirely understandable, using such concern as simply a way to change the subject when the one widely predicted failure looks like it might be turning around — well, that looks a bit like the disappointment of someone who hopes he can find failure somewhere. What it doesn’t look like is skeptical.

  124. Sally Says:

    The long-term historical trend in the West points to the triumph of liberalism.

    Agreed. The problem is in the meaning of “liberalism”. The long-term trend associates liberalism with the emergence of the modern notion of the individual, and this in turn has driven the rise of capitalism, industrialization, science and technology, and democracy, among many other good things. It has also generated a reaction, on both the left and the right, that seeks to submerge the individual again in a new collective mass. The extremes of those reactions have been fought and defeated, but their more moderate versions continue, often enough in disguise. And one of the most ironic of those disguises is the (mis-)appropriation of the term “liberal” — or the even more ridiculous misuse of the term “progressive” — to describe those who seek re-impose a collective, “socialized” totality on human society in piecemeal fashion. In this guise, they’ve certainly had some success, over the last few generations, indicating that historical trends are only as good as we — the historical drivers — make them. Lately, on the other hand, there have been significant successes in favor of the underlying long-term trend, advancing individual freedom, throughout the world. That, in fact, is the real meaning of the current struggle against islamism, and the dark reason so many on the left find it sympathetic. But we’re all just in the midst of these struggles, large and small — in the midst of history. And history, of course, guarantees nothing.

  125. jimfocus Says:

    Message to Bunkerbuster:

    Swordfish!

    Also, the Super Secret Daily Kos Hate America Cell of mine is planning a Jane Fonda film festival, w/ Brian DePalma coming in w/ a director’s cut of Redacted. Also, a version of All Quiet On The Western Front rescored w/ Beatle music will be featured. Special guest Sean Penn is coming, too, w/ a special “amigo” (using these quotes is so hot, Quotation Dude!), whoever that is!

    Peace and surrender (wink, wink)

  126. jimfocus Says:

    Hey Sally,

    Do you have Gary Cooper & Patricia Neal fantasies? You like really tall buildings? Just wondering.

    Klaatu barada nikto

  127. Chris White Says:

    This quote is from an article by Munira Mirza in Spiked about politics in the art world in Britain, but it makes a valid and interesting point when considering much of the tussling that goes on in these threads.

    “So, the first point to make is that we should recognise that when we use the terms left and right, we’re not really referring to political categories, so much as badges of honour that we parade around. Or else, they are terms of abuse, to dismiss someone’s arguments and avoid examining their ideas properly. Many people cling to them for emotional comfort at a time when the sea of ideology is confusing and uncertain.”

    Let’s recap shall we. When Clinton committed troops to an international effort to deal with strife in the Balkans, neocons (eg. Cheney, Kristol) criticized it as pointless and useless nation building. We still have troops there but very little fighting. There have been arrests, tribunals and punishments meted out for the most egregious perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing that went on before the international coalition forces brought about the calm that enabled international diplomatic and legal progress to take place. This is presented either as Clinton’s folly, or a supposed counter argument to criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of the Middle East. In short, it is a success that is ignored or denied by opponents of Clinton (and by extension the Democrats, the MSM, leftists, fellow travelers, Stalinists, Chavez and perhaps the Tooth Fairy).

    I, Laura and others wonder where the diplomatic efforts are that were supposed to become possible in the relative calm the troop surge has provided. No one seems to address this; rather they attack the question itself as implied criticism or denial of the success of the military surge.

    Believe that the strategy in the Middle East followed by the Bush administration went off the rails when it shifted from international efforts to bring al Qaeda to justice to a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq? You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot. Wonder whether continued U.S. support of Musharraf as he dismantles the judiciary, puts all the opposition under house arrest and engineers his continued rule is a foolish and shortsighted mistake? You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot. Worry about similarities in the current saber rattling vis a vis Iran with the period before the Iraq invasion. You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot. Suggest that, if we are truly engaged in WW IV, a generation(s) long existential fight for our very existence, we need to honestly consider who is going to do the fighting and dying and bring up the issue of the draft and shared sacrifice? You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot.

    And, just a few final questions; what sources of information are deemed valid if you’ve written off the entire MSM (NYT=Pravda, etc.)? Is it only Fox (and other Murdoch outlets) Kristol’s Reason, Rush, Hannity and Coulter? Who considers these sources objective? Is the effort to present objective facts even considered a worthy and desirable ideal to be strived for in the media or should the media function to advance the agenda of the administration? Given that administrations change, should the function of the media change when Democrats are in office rather than Republicans … or Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiots rather than patriotic, neocon intellects?

  128. Tap Says:

    I see you object to our use of political labels, but have no problem with labeling your opponents. I realize that as a member of the left you would like to enhance the control of language, and that such efforts have had some success in the past.

    I doubt it will accomplish much here, though. I, for one, will continue to use such terms as left and right to label political parties.

    As far as your you must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot theory, I actually hear less of that from the right on this sight than the left’s version – America just wants to throw her weight around (but not in such nice words).

    As far as you and Laura bringing up a draft not receiving serious debate, there is a reason for that. If we thought it was a serious proposal, we’d take it that way and discuss it. But it is not.

    That’s not to say we insist there will never be a need for a draft again. Whether there one day will be such a need is certainly debatable.

    But Laura does not want a draft. Laura thinks that if she and the left could convince America that it is necessary to either institute a draft or surrender, now, America will choose surrender.

    So no, you don’t get a serious debate about instituting a draft when the only people proposing a draft are against it themselves.

    As far as your last paragraph, why don’t you try taking us at our word? You seem to HEAR that we do not believe that the MSM is making an effort to present objective facts. Is it that you just don’t BELIEVE we mean it?

    If so, that might be a bit of projection on your part. N o b o d y thinks that the media function should be to “advance the agenda of the administration”. Stop projecting.

  129. jimfocus Says:

    Any healthy pro-war neocon or con between the ages of 18-32 that insist on this war and hasn’t volunteered for Iraq is a 5 star phony. Questioning the patriotism of war opponents is one of the oldest, worn out tactics American conservatives have used for generations. Hitler used it, too. It’s a false argument used to shut down discussion of real issues and causes of any war, which are almost always economically based.

    Invading Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11 other than using it as a pretext, among others, to go in. That’s why you saw the constant conflating of Saddam and 9/11 by the Adm. on a daily basis. It is well documented that the Neocons had a ****-on for Saddam for years, and also wanted to est. a huge US military presence in the ME. Once they got in w/ Bush they pushed these designs w/ ideological fervor, especially Wolfowitz, Feith, and Rove.

    Many in a vocal minority from the left and right warned of the dangers and folly of such a unilateral move but 9/11 and the super-patriot threat cowed many more who should have known better.

    The saddest thing now is the sabre-rattling toward Iran by these same neocons. Why anyone could still listen to any of them after the last 6 years is beyond me. Even sadder is the fact that our military is now broken, many of our Iraqi-based troops, who would be called on in an Iranian adventure, are exhausted form 3rd an 4th tours. I love how the war supporters on here minimize what’s happened, pointing out the same thing was done in WWII. Of course, that ignores the fact that our part in WWII lasted less time than this war, and it’s still going on.

    Even if we can clean up the Iraq mess, we have still failed to take care of the elements leading to 9/11. Rather than making us more secure, the Iraq misadventure has made us ever more vulnerable.

  130. Laura Says:

    It is always the case here when the issue of a political solution is raised that the hatchets get thrown. I am merely pointing out what both Crocker and Patreaus testified on the Hill. Why is that a threat?

    We cannot win in Iraq, period, when there is nothing to win but a police state inside of a sovereign country. It cannot be sustained. If that threatens your “winning” stance, then please do rebut. Tell me exactly how that is supposed to work.

  131. jimfocus Says:

    Attention all internet cell members:

    Swordfish!

  132. jimfocus Says:

    Over the last 6 years we have put up with bs about & from:

    WMD’s

    Mobile Germ Warfare Capability

    Reconstituted Nuclear Program

    Centrifuges everywhere

    Yellowcake

    Alum Tubes

    Curveball Intell.

    Ahmed Chalabi

    Cakewalk

    Mission Accomplished

    And people moan that war critics remain skeptical to this day? Come on, get real. This President;s credibility is below 30% because you can’t believe him, or anything that his Adm claims.

    Lose America lose!
    Surrender! Surrender!

  133. Chris White Says:

    I think “right” and “left” are simplistic and out moded stereotypes that lend themselves to puerile “Jane, you ignorant slut.” arguments rather than substantive discussions. I know very few individuals who neatly fit the stereotype of either pole. Having been compared to Benedict Arnold after one of my very first comments (which primarily consisted of questions … admittedly leading questions, but I did not offer any kind of treasonous suggestions) I dispute your assertion that these spurious, grand conspiracy, attacks on the person making the comment are more a habit of the “left” rather than “right” voices making comments here.

    Regarding the draft, I have argued in favor of universal service (with options beyond just the military) since the late 60s when the Viet Nam era draft was in force. It might make an interesting discussion some time.

    As for the MSM, again, I hear what YOU are saying; I understand that you BELIEVE the MSM is a grand leftist conspiracy. But when I ask questions about what media (if any) you do trust or how you think the media should work, all I get is are insults. [Curious that the entities that make up the MSM are owned by giant corporate conglomerates, maybe it's that 'politics makes for strange bedfellows' thing at work.]

    And, to be even handed, jimfocus, enough already with the juvenile sarcasm.

  134. Trimegistus Says:

    Laura, you bandy about the term “political solution” like it’s some kind of magic spell.

    There can’t be a political solution until there is a military solution. Al-Qaeda must be militarily defeated before any negotiations can take place with their masters in Iran.

    This is simple, grade-school level stuff. The fact that you seem to be unaware of it means that either a) you’re monumentally ignorant and naive, in which case your opinion is hardly worth considering, or b) you’re being deliberately dishonest and actually desire a bloody military defeat for the U.S. in Iraq.

    By calling you a monster I’m giving you credit for intelligence, since it’s hard to believe anyone could be stupid enough to think a political solution is possible while Iran is still sending Revolutionary Guards into Iraq with weapons for the Al-Qaeda remnants there.

    So perhaps I’ve been too harsh in saying you’re a monster. Maybe you’re just a fool.

  135. Sally Says:

    CW: Believe that the strategy in the Middle East followed by the Bush administration went off the rails when it shifted from international efforts to bring al Qaeda to justice to a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq? You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot.

    No, there are some distinctions that should be made. There aren’t many overt or admitted Stalinists/communists/socialists left any more, actually, for the same reason there aren’t many overt Nazis. And, while the leftists they’ve morphed into aren’t necessarily idiots, they arereactionaries, hostile to freedom and the individual, and so naturally hostile to the whole project of America and the West in general. This makes them easily susceptible to the lure of any anti-American, anti-Western force or ideology, including, oddly enough, radical Islamism. I suppose you could call that idiocy, but it’s really more of a moral affliction than an intellectual one.

    There are, to be sure, the simple idiots, like jimmy the donkey. But only slightly more interesting are the idiots, who, for example, are unable to see the difference between incidental death and destruction in a war, however regrettable, and the deliberate attempt to maximize such death. And these are the people who seem to think, for example, that the problem of Islamism begins and ends with al Qaeda and 9/11, who think that confronting a global revival of a form of fascism is a matter of police procedure, who think that “diplomacy” without any credible threat of force is a magical incantation that resolves any conflict, or who think that “international efforts” should be able to veto any national strategy to confront and defeat forces that threaten our national security. These are the real idiots.

    You need to be more nuanced, CW.

  136. Tap Says:

    “But when I ask questions about what media (if any) you do trust or how you think the media should work, all I get is are insults.”

    Just looking for some honest dialogue, right? Do you remember that this was part of the same paragraph:

    “Is the effort to present objective facts even considered a worthy and desirable ideal to be strived for in the media or should the media function to advance the agenda of the administration? Given that administrations change, should the function of the media change when Democrats are in office rather than Republicans … or Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiots rather than patriotic, neocon intellects?”

    Maybe you should read what you wrote, CW, before accusing those who respond of insulting you.

  137. jimfocus Says:

    To Chris,

    Maybe you missed my post on the subject, but I’m fine w/ a cerebral discussion, but (as has already been done on this site) when I’m called an idiot, a paranoid, traitor, unAmerican, (someone even tried to attack my punctuation!)etc, for voicing reasonable postions, I’ll give it right back w/ humor and sarcasm. A lot of what’s said on here is over the top funny anyway. You never see me throwing around the Nazi and fascist terms like many use the commie and Stalinist smears here. I’m nowhere near that hateful crap passing for discussion that’s spewed on here everyday. If you don’t like what I post, there’s an easy solution–move on. Freedom of speech is like that.

    Swordfish!

  138. Tap Says:

    You are told that some of us distrust MSM specifically because we perceive MSM to be agenda driven and sorely lacking in objectivity.

    You then suggest that we are opposed to the presentation of objective facts and in fact prefer that the “media function to advance the agenda of the administration.”

    You follow this up with the suggestion that we are too stupid to realize this (supposition on your part that we are lying about our motives and actually do NOT want an objective media) might come back to bite us when administrations change.

    Perhaps you should consider the fact that you are the one blocking honest dialogue here. If you’d like to argue that the MSM IS objective and doing a lovely job of informing the public, that would be fine and dandy. We could debate that. But that’s not what you are after, is it?

  139. Truth Says:

    Al-Qaeda must be militarily defeated before any negotiations can take place with their masters in Iran.

    This not quite accurate statement to say.

    Truth

  140. Truth Says:

    jimfocus:

    Can I add these to your list?

    He tried to kill my Father.

    He did not selling his oil to us.

  141. jimfocus Says:

    Ha! Sally is still incapable of posting w/o making one insult, at least, really kind of pathetic.

    Hey, have you see The Fountainhead lately?

  142. jimfocus Says:

    Be my guest, Truth, you crazy fellow traveller you.

    I don’t know if you have read the much talked about Petroleum Act stalled in the Iraqi Parl., but it basically puts oil production into American control for about 100 years, amazing. All this talk about making Iraq a free and open democracy, calling it’s own shots, seems like a lot of malarky to me, I could be wrong, but the evidence is mounting. I was particularly taken by Jon Bolton’s remarks a few days ago on Hardball–he feels we should have withdrawn 4 years ago, of course his hidden agenda is that he wants all that military force directed at Iran–ya gotta luv dese neocons.

    BTW, on a post yesterday some of you wondered about my use of ebonics (I think I was talking about Quotation Dude, the punctuation snob). That post was actually entered by my wife for me (I was traveling) and she added the ebonics. Oh, she’s also, in addition to being the world’s greatest wife, a woman of color.

  143. Chris White Says:

    I think the MSM is too driven by advertising, marketing and entertainment concerns to do the best job possible, but largely tries to offer facts and a “balance” of opinions. If they have a bias it is flexible,not fixed and leans toward (a) whatever the majority of the populous is thinking/feeling and (b) whatever doesn’t upset the apple cart of their ownereship and advertisers. Those who watch/listen from either (or both) extremes might (and often do) complain that the MSM is getting it wrong or has a partisan agenda.

    Whether one seeks out a few media sources that reinforce one’s opinions or a wide range of divergent sources to compare and contrast is a choice we all make. It is a choice we all CAN make because, even without alternative media sources or access to direct source material, there are many robust and diverse media outlets available to us.

    For me, the MSM outlets I most rely on for news include NPR, BBC, and PBS. I suspect that FOX and the WSJ are more favored around here, although I still haven’t seen any clear answers to that question.

    And jimfocus, I fear you are right … well, left, but correct.

  144. Laura Says:

    Here is the Iraq oil law for all you out there who haven’t yet read it.

    http://web.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__2007_03_09_h17m2s47.pdf

  145. Laura Says:

    another read about the oil law. One of the drafters is now a critic.

    http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/05/02/analysis_iraq_oil_law_author_now_a_critic/

  146. Tap Says:

    I prefer a wide range of sources to compare and contrast.

    As far as FOX, they do at least allow commentators from both sides of the political fence, unlike most of what you hear/read with most other MSM, but their stories come from the same sources as the rest of the MSM. No, I don’t rely on them as a sole source either.

    I would suggest that if you rely mainly on NPR, BBC, and PBS, then you do the opposite, choosing sources that reinforce your opinion. Honestly, I don’t think you could do much worse.

    What’s your opinion on the fact that so much of the MSM base their reporting on the same few sources (such as AP and Reuters)? How do you think this effects the big picture we all have of the world?

    What is your response to the many recent instances of MSM being caught lying, omitting or just plain being wrong on the stories they do report? Or have you missed all of that, relying as you do on NPR, BBC, and PBS?

  147. jimfocus Says:

    I may be one of the few here who has actually worked in a newsroom. Most of the criticisms are valid from both sides, but somewhat overstated. The big problem with most news operations is time, not ideology–checking facts and vetting sources, not driving the story politically. In my experience working w/ several big circulation enterprises, the rank & file reporter is mostly blue collar, leaning moderate to left, but there are many the other way, too. Also, usually the smaller the paper, the more conservative, especially about local news and investigative pieces–very hard and rare anymore to do that stuff in a small town operation, the politics are just too thick.

    Though Fox News tried to upgrade their operation into a more objective plant last year, they’ve fallen back to the Roger Ailes propaganda practices. Their morning & afternoon anchors, that’s when they claim to be unbiased, are laughably tilted right, w/ little pretense of fairness. MSNBC seems to be headed down the same road, though a leftward one.

    I get a lot of papers emailed to me every AM and get my news from those, I like the Financial Times stuff a lot, and the straight Wall St. news operation is still great, though it may change radically under NewsCorp.

    I admit my eyes glaze over abit when people talk about “the media” or “MSM.” Those terms seem too convenient. Newspapers and news organizations have always been very messy operations, going back 200 years. It’s always been a flawed system, but there still may be enough right with it, though most media outlets failed the country mightily in the run up to the war.

    Swordfish!

  148. Sally Says:

    The bias of the MSM is simply the bias of its cultural milieu, which, in America, means the bias of the coastal elites. In political terms, this translates into the reflexive, shallow, bien pensant left “liberalism” of the sort that’s dominated college campuses since the 70′s. When that media starts reporting that positive changes are happening in Iraq, or indeed that anything good at all is happening under the Bush administration, you can trust it because it’s a truth they’d avoid if possible. With their routine reports of disaster under this administration, on the other hand, skepticism is always warranted.

  149. jimfocus Says:

    Sorry Sally, can’t really agree w/ that totally, you have a point to a point. Your stereotype doesn’t hold true in a lot of important examples. One is the NYT getting completely snowed in the Judith Miller affair (whoops, a pun!) that involved Scooter Libby and Ahmed Chalabi figuring out the Times fact checking operation and manipulating the “evidence” being fed to Miller. That’s how all that Curveball crap got into the NYT and everywhere else (it’s still being quoted on this site). Much of it also made it into Powell’s now infamous UN speech. It contributed mightily in making the Adm.’s case for the Iraq invasion. Where was the liberal media bias then? A combination of factors, of which bias is one, contribute to problems in news reporting, including outside manipulation.

    BTW, if your claim is that news should be unbiased and objectively reported, shouldn’t Fox News offend you no matter your political stripe?

  150. jimfocus Says:

    Attention all cell members:

    boogah!boogah!

  151. Perfected democrat Says:

    “Even if we can clean up the Iraq mess, we have still failed to take care of the elements leading to 9/11. Rather than making us more secure, the Iraq misadventure has made us ever more vulnerable.”
    jimf… (i believe?)

    in case you haven’t noticed the world has now been ethnically cleansed of several thousands of the worlds most eager jihadis…. personally i feel a little safer….

  152. truth Says:

    Laura jimfocus ,
    U.S. Building Military Base Directly Atop Iraqi Oil Platform

    With US dollar declining US turn back to her allies from Saudis to Gulf states for their money!

    Gulf liquidity offers glimmer of hope

  153. jimfocus Says:

    Hey, Perfected

    You really feel safer? Then you agree w/ Jon Bolton that we should withdraw? Remember, Iran wasn’t near the problem 6 years ago that they are now, need to add all that to your feeling better equation. I’m much more nervous, thank you.

    Truth, thanks for the links, might be posting on them tomorrow.

  154. Truth Says:

    Bush Admin: What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Us, 2007 Version
    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004766.php

  155. Truth Says:

    “We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back

    http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues

  156. Ymarsakar Says:

    You must be a Stalinist/communist/socialist/leftist idiot.

    Don’t forget National Socialist.

  157. Ymarsakar Says:

    And, to be even handed, jimfocus, enough already with the juvenile sarcasm.

    That’s why I thought and still think Chris White can articulate his position well in order for some knowledge to be derived from his words. Can’t say that for the rest of his group, however.

  158. Ymarsakar Says:

    Btw, this AmericanThinker article spells out why people see National Socialism as being on the left, rather than the right.

    Link

  159. Ymarsakar Says:

    On a side note, am I the only one amused at all this group therapy agreement session going on over Leftists that have found a soul mate?

    Not even conservatives do that when debating as a team against the Left on a forum.

    “We agree completely with each other”… not really. But it is true for the monolithic philosophy of the Left, which requires its members to believe in important core concepts in order to stay in good stead.

  160. Laura Says:

    Yarm:”Btw, this AmericanThinker article spells out why people see National Socialism as being on the left, rather than the right.”

    Which “people”? The RIGHT people?

    Oh that’s right Yarm, real “nonbias” media outlet American Thinker run by Lifson?

    Gee, cant you do better than that? Drudge, American Thinker are the source points for what is heard on conservative talk around the country. You think they don’t have an agenda?

    Brother!

  161. Laura Says:

    The Big Lie: Right Wing Propaganda

    Have any of you read it?

  162. Laura Says:

    sorry, that was

    http://www.joeconason.com/books/biglies

  163. Ymarsakar Says:

    Obviously people that aren’t like you, Laura.

    Oh that’s right Yarm, real “nonbias” media outlet American Thinker run by Lifson?

    Unlike the Left, I recognize that there is no point in trying to get an unbiased source. What matters is the assumptions, premises, and logic used, not the “bias”. Not everything can be seen through the Left’s concept of ideological purity, Laura. Nor is such a concept a useful tool for analyzing what is accurate or not in the real world.

  164. Ymarsakar Says:

    an era of right-wing bullying and political conformity

    For example, such a philosophical premise would be wrong regardless of who forwarded it. Their bias matters not, for their philosophy sucks. Without a solid foundation, no amount of bias can make water turn into wine.

  165. Laura Says:

    “Their bias matters not, for their philosophy sucks.”

    Of course, in your own OPINION right? Let’s be real alright?

  166. OverGourd Says:

    You know a thread is well and truly over when the left trolls begin to argue with ymar.

    Laura sure isn’t Rosa Luxemburg is she?

  167. Talkinkamel Says:

    No, Rosa Luxemburg she definitely ain’t! (Rosie O’Donnel, maybe. . . )

    Yes, when the trolls begin to argue with ymar, it’s pretty much over.

    I love Neo’s posts, but there are times when I wish she’d shut down, or eliminate, the comments altogether (even though that would mean shutting down the sane commenters too).

    The trolls here are an unusually demented, and illogical breed. I suspect they have a particular bile against Neo, because she used to be one of “them”. In the leftist mindset, her changing her mind makes her a traitor. Therefore, she must be screamed at and shouted down until she either gives up and goes away, or returns to the fold, for re-education.

    (Don’t do either one, Neo! A lot of us like you the way you are!)

  168. Ymarsakar Says:

    Of course, in your own OPINION right? Let’s be real alright?

    Technically in the context of what I mean by philosophy, we are talking about epistemology not metaphysics. It is not about what is or is not real, that is metaphysics. It is about forming correct philosophical beliefs, not from opinion, but from basic epistemology.

    So let’s throw out opinion and other such useless concepts.

    The trolls here are an unusually demented, and illogical breed.

    They are okay, Talkin. Not polite, but okay. At least to me, since I don’t really get emotional over most of their comments. I’ve seen most of them already.

    It is much easier to figure out the philosophy of a Chris White than a focus or a Laura. Saves me time in the end. So obviously anyone talking to Laura will spend quite a bit of time over the preliminaries before they get down to the deep beliefs that really matter. Stop loss, Iraq, the Draft, and other things simply do not matter. What matters is beliefs. True beliefs. And while it is a slow process, you do get some gleamings if you read all that Laura has written to others.

    Neoconned and Spank were real works, Talkin. Hate needs some time to truly become rich and textured, so for most, it is only slightly acidic as you’ve seen here. Only the rare few have true blowouts.

  169. Laura Says:

    Shutting down the thread from a “troll” indicates to me that you all are more interested again in hearing yourselves think in your own reality you created for yourself.

    If a troll is someone who differs from the opinion here, then I guess you pegged me.

    But, for the differences in opinion about the war, there is likely much we do agree upon.

    Thanks for the insightful comments.

  170. Ymarsakar Says:

    I suspect they have a particular bile against Neo, because she used to be one of “them”. In the leftist mindset, her changing her mind makes her a traitor. Therefore, she must be screamed at and shouted down until she either gives up and goes away, or returns to the fold, for re-education.

    I don’t think this new group has anything nasty against Neo.

    I was trying to figure out how a person would have these two beliefs and be able to make them compatible. For example, a person wants to stop stoploss because they want to get out of the military whenever they want. Close enough anyways. Since the military enlistment period is 4 years active and 2-4 years in the reserve, then all of the people in the military right now enlisted or re-enlisted after 2001. If they only wanted to serve in Afghanistan, then I don’t see why they don’t devote most of their energies into trying to get transfered to that AO instead of talking about getting others to replace them.

    Laura and her military source wished for others to be sent into the military, if they don’t join of their own will, in order to “ease the burden” on those that are already in the military. This is what they see as supporting the military, which really translates as supporting those who want to get out of the military.

    The philosophical assumptions simply conflict here. If you believe that there is a problem in the military about holding people against their will, then why would your solution be to make others join the military against their will? Did the people who re-enlisted think that after 4 years that this would be it? Did people enlist after 2001 thinking that they could get out automatically in 2005? Let’s say that there are people in the military that want out NOW, in 2007. THey would have had to have enlisted or re-enlisted in 2003. What is up with that?

    The philosophy that says others must pay for your mistakes, is a faulty philosophy in the end.

    It is inconceivable how George Washington was able to overcome the problems of having his soldiers leave becase their enlistment expired in the middle of the Revolution, with no way to keep them in except with a speech about patriotism, but modern Americans would rather complain about these problems than win the war. Inconceivable perhaps, but real all the same.

  171. Sally Says:

    Shutting down the thread from a “troll” indicates to me that you all are more interested again in hearing yourselves think in your own reality you created for yourself.

    No, it means stopping those who try to clog, dominate or otherwise derail a thread, and thereby keeping it open for those who make some effort at rational debate — you know, as opposed to donkey braying.

  172. Tap Says:

    A term of enlistment can be for 6 yrs, Y, but your point still stands.

    As far as my impression of Laura, when she first arrived here, I thought she might be a bit left of center posing as right of center. I now think she’s more than a bit left of center. But I also think that her primary philosophy is MOMMY philosophy.

    Her son is in danger and she wants to protect him. Can’t blame her for that too much, though I of course don’t agree with how she goes about it or what she thinks will protect him.

  173. Talkinkamel Says:

    Whereas, Laura, I suppose we should all simply be interested in what you think, and never dare oppose you? And, of course, if we disagree with you, we’re simply evil. Yeah. Right.

  174. Ymarsakar Says:

    Since the military enlistment period is 4 years active and 2-4 years in the reserve

    Who does six years active duty? Navy?

  175. Ymarsakar Says:

    Her son is in danger and she wants to protect him.

    That can certainly explain why she isn’t interested in blackfive, who covers all of the military affairs and events that go on.

  176. Ymarsakar Says:

    It sometimes pays to know that these kinds of problems will only grow larger as people waste most of their energies reading Leftist slogans.

    link

    It would be nice to wish for someone else to help America not go it alone. But such wishes are a fantasy really. Nobody is going to pull people, that are fatigued, from a war. Certainly not Bush since he doesn’t even use his pardon powers to protect soldiers from the domestic insurgency here in the US.

    These are problems that international agreements and “relationships” won’t solve. IN fact, such things will only make the problems worse. Good armies aren’t made from negotiations after all.

  177. Tap Says:

    When we were newly married, my husband joined the Navy. His term was 6 years.

  178. Tap Says:

    Most sign on for 4 yrs. in th Navy, but he qualified for a couple of Navy schools. The Navy required him to sign for 6 yr. if he wanted to go to them.

  179. Tap Says:

    He was also well aware (and made me aware) of the fact that his discharge date was theoretical..that he could be held over indefinitely and also that he would also be required to be a part of the Inactive Reserves when he got out and could therefore be called back up.

    As he put it to me, ‘I feel like I signed away every thing but our first child. And maybe that, too.’

  180. Xanthippas Says:

    No, it means stopping those who try to clog, dominate or otherwise derail a thread, and thereby keeping it open for those who make some effort at rational debate — you know, as opposed to donkey braying.

    Ridiculous. You are free to leave your comment, just as I am. How is the thread “clogged” by numerous comments? Isn’t that a sign of debate? How can a comment thread be “dominated” when everyone can comment as much as they wish? How can a comment thread be derailed when any number of commentators can bring it back on track? Or by “derail” do you mean, delves into other topics and subjects?

    In truth you detest an argument where you can’t eventually shout-down your opponents. The unwillingness to have a fair argument is the hallmark of right-wing close-mindedness, and it’s why commentators are so frequently banned and comments are so frequently moderated on right-wing blogs.

  181. Xanthippas Says:

    These are problems that international agreements and “relationships” won’t solve. IN fact, such things will only make the problems worse. Good armies aren’t made from negotiations after all.

    Yes, things would certainly be better if all of our allies pulled out from Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we could be afforded maximum flexibility with minimum fuss.

  182. Ymarsakar Says:

    Yes, things would certainly be better if all of our allies pulled out from Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we could be afforded maximum flexibility with minimum fuss.

    Indeed. It was only Tony Blair’s need for the UN that made Bush decide to go to the UN, and thus the whole WMD route. Read the link for how that worked out for America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There would be more international support for America if people knew that America would always ignore and pay no attention to the corrupt UN full of Cold War powers. Potential US allies don’t want to deal with France, Britain, Russia, or China.

  183. Sally Says:

    X: Ridiculous. You are free to leave your comment, just as I am. How is the thread “clogged” by numerous comments? Isn’t that a sign of debate?

    Not when the “comments” consist of nothing more than yee-haws, taunts, or article-length cut-and-pastes, etc. — then it’s a sign of a malicious attempt to destroy debate by clogging a comment stream in the same way spam clogs email. This is primarily a tactic you see used by lefty trolls, who think they can hide behind howls of “unfairness” whenever they’re booted out for it. But that’s just a calculated and predictable ploy that they think will by them a little more spamming time.

    Why, you might wonder (or not), is such trollishness largely a characteristic of lefties trying to undermine right and center blogs than the other way around? The answer might be related to the prevalence of left wing attempts to shout down conservative speakers on campuses, left-liberal attempts to shut down conservative talk radio (revival of the infamous and aburdly titled “fairness” doctrine), and the general lefty preference for violence as a way of trying to obstruct and shut down various international forums. It’s because, to put it simply, lefties lose when they’re in a fair debate, and they know it.

    But here’s a thought for any broken-hearted trolls that might find themselves banshed from a blog — start your own! Fill it as full as you like with yee-haws and put downs, and see how many readers you can gather through your own efforts!

  184. jimfocus Says:

    I’ve gotten a lot of positive responses–maybe that’s what you can’t stand. Nothing’s more childish than your dismissive insults along side your weak arguments.

  185. jimfocus Says:

    BTW, neo & the neocons, I thought you were the ones that hate victimhood–then quit living what you hate. Many of you take yourselves way way way too seriously on here w/ some sort of pseudo-intellectual pose, it’s just a little thread in the blogosphere, not Grand Rounds at Harvard.

    BTW, “Yeeeh Haaah” was not me, I made it very clear that I was quoting Slim Pickens. If it was good enough for Kubrick, it should be acceptable to the intelligentsia on here.

    “It’s going to be a long hard slog,” Rummy said this about 3-4 years ago when the insurgency took hold, our ambassador to Iraq, I believe, just said it again–how does this square w/ the surge success?

    How was the punctuation?

  186. Sally Says:

    Hey, jimbo, if we’re too serious for you, there’s the door. I’m sure there are a lot of other threads on the blogosphere that would find your “intellectual” references and, um, humor right at their level.

  187. Laura Says:

    Yarm says:

    “Laura and her military source wished for others to be sent into the military, if they don’t join of their own will, in order to “ease the burden” on those that are already in the military. This is what they see as supporting the military, which really translates as supporting those who want to get out of the military”

    No, I believe that the strain being placed on our military cannot be sustained due to the lack of good recruits and overextended tours of duty. I believe that there are a number of young people who feel strongly about supporting the war and that they should serve militarily if they feel that strongly about it as it would help to ease the strain on the ones on their 4th and 5th tours now, as well as support their country’s foreign policies.

    Additionally, I believe that parents of these young people should encourage their sons and daughters to sign up. Why? Because it teaches them to stand up on the “principle” of this war and all it represents. If it is so noble, I think parents who support the war should be more encouraging of their sons and daughters participating. Most importantly, it’s important from a patriotic standpoint. How can one say they are invested in the “winning” when only 1% is actually doing the work?

  188. jimfocus Says:

    Hey Sally-bo, what’s uuup! Thanks for keeping the insult level down on that last post–refreshing. Hey, I do my best on the humor thing but I definitely could improve–maybe you could do a post w/ humor, for a change, & show me what passes for humor w/ you, OK?

    Laura, you touch on the growing crisis with the Iraq occupation, the troop levels will have to be cut, no matter what, in 2008. What scares me is the thought that Bush will pull a late-in-the-term stunt & go after Iran. Has anybody figured out what Iran just might do in response to a pre-emptive unilateral strike by us? Or did you think they were going to sit there & do nothing? If we did strike them from the air, wouldn’t we have to deploy troops to prevent Iran from trying to cut off the oil–that seems like a logical reaction by them. Where would the troops come from? But I’m far from a military expert–maybe some one out there who is military or former military might have thoughts on what we have to plan for in the aftermath of an airstrike on Iran. It seems that a strike is becoming inevitable, I just read in FT that the Saudis believe Bush is going to do it and they fear huge repercussions against them from Iran, which hates them–given what happened w/ not thinking through the occupation of Iraq, I worry the same thing might happen w/ Iran.

  189. Perfected democrat Says:

    jimf.. says : “What scares me is the thought that Bush will pull a late-in-the-term stunt and …”

    maybe jim… but maybe annapolis is the stunt. by definition, negotiation with islamists (saudis especially) more than implies a replay of “the treaty of hudaibiya” (in 628). “shallow” is apparently a communicable disease…

  190. Ymarsakar Says:

    Because it teaches them to stand up on the “principle” of this war and all it represents

    Stop this fakeness, Laura. You don’t believe in the classical liberal principle by which this war was started upon.

    What you believe is that other people need to make things easy for yourself and your own. Does amoral familism ring a bell?

    It would be one thing if you actually believed what you were saying, but it is the same thing as fake liberals talking about Americans bombing civilians. They never cared in the first place, so why should fake liberals care now?

  191. Sally Says:

    jimf: Hey, I do my best on the humor thing but I definitely could improve

    Right. Maybe you could practice someplace else?

    On the other hand, you do have a humorous impression of the classic armchair military strategist, pulling imaginary tactics, threats, logistics, etc., out of thin air. There actually is a building that has quite a few, you know, “military experts” whose job it is to plan these things out. Not to say they haven’t, and won’t made/make mistakes, but they’re probably less likely to do so than you or I (or Laura). The real question — one that’s more on the citizen level — is whether Iran constitutes a serious enough menace to make it necessary to take out out their nuclear capability. There are fears associated with doing so, certainly, but letting such fears cause us to ignore or belittle real threats is mere cowardice.

  192. Laura Says:

    Jimf and all,

    here is a dan froomkin peice in the wapo that i found interesting. it does talk about iran later in the article

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/24/BL2007092400717_pf.html

  193. Laura Says:

    Sally, as a follow up to the Iran threat, I find it troubling that the NIE on Iran has been held up for over a year because of dissenting opinion by some of the intel analysts. There have been many references to this lately, although somewhat quiet have to look for them.

    What I find troubling is the White House involvement in crafting the NIE in order to reflect what Cheney and his advisors would like it to reflect. This seems too much like the estimates on Iraq prior to the war.

  194. Perfected democrat Says:

    jimfocus Says:

    November 26th, 2007 at 2:15 am
    Hey, Perfected

    “You really feel safer? Then you agree w/ Jon Bolton that we should withdraw? Remember, Iran wasn’t near the problem 6 years ago ….”

    i definitely feel safer, considering mo’s gang numbers in the 1.5 billion category size from which to draw, and considering things are constantly in flux and evolving everyday, not static… some of the most dangerous people on earth are now dead, there may be much more to do, but some of the eagerest of beavers are now out of commission… of course guessing the future is always conjecture, but saddam was one of the important heads of the hydra, and now at least that one is gone… if our troops had to face both iraq and iran ten years from now simultaneously? the long-term danger from saddam alone is certainly less…. as far as withdrawl is considered, i’d feel better if the military was more vocal and influential in the decision making than moveon.dork……

  195. OmegaPaladin Says:

    I just read this whole thing, and the only person who seems to be trolling is Laura. Laura, launching continual barrages of arguments on different points is quite simply trolling. It comes off like you are trying to make up for poor quality arguments with massive quantity.

    Jim – the humor is not really effective. You remind me of my friend Kelly. He would always try to make political points using humor, though he was better at it than you. I honestly thought you were a right-wing guy trying to parody a leftist for your first few posts.

    Your talk about your experience in the media was interesting. I’d actually suggest you check out He’s a right-wing journalist, with a comment section that might better appreciate your humor.

    Oh, and an open question to all advocates of the chickenhawk idea: Do you support turning over military control to veterans and active-duty personnel? Just asking.

    Xanthippas and Chris don’t really seem to be trolling. Thank you, it is appreciated.

  196. Ymarsakar Says:

    Yep, things are going just great in Iraq, couldn’t be better. But it is a true measure of Neocon policy — a bunch of incompetent thugs trying to force other people to do their bidding while stealing their oil. Democracy at the point of a gun is not democracy.

    Leftist plantation slaves, adoption of terrorist and ACORN criminals, now that must be your Democrat’s Democracy.

    Eat your crow little girl and boy.

  197. Charlette Jackson Says:

    I think the real estate in my area is picking up soon

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge