…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.
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
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northern Iraq, the Green Zone is no longer safe, even more members of the “Coalition (smirk) of the Willing” have withdrawn their troops, our soldiers and National Guard are even more over-extended and a number of generals who were stationed in Iraq have come out against the war,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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
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.’
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
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,
from that neocon bastion of propaganda, the Washington Post.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Gasp! But wait! There’s more…
Damn refugees. Don’t they know that they’re screwing up ‘the narrative’?
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
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?
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Rubbish.
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
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?
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
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.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
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…
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
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!!
November 24th, 2007 at 5:31 am
In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8353901
November 24th, 2007 at 8:54 am
At least this blog keeps Laura and ilk from doing stuff in real life.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:41 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:53 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am
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.”
November 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am
cappy: At least this blog keeps Laura and ilk from doing stuff in real life.
It’s the flypaper strategy all over again!
November 24th, 2007 at 10:56 am
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.”
November 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am
“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.”
November 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:13 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:22 am
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:36 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Here you go Tapp
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=879eba2a-a4c8-473e-8ed5-7fd8d5570566
November 24th, 2007 at 11:48 am
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Certainly Occam. Would you like more links?
November 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Step outside the bubble just a bit and read this:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000809.htm
November 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“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?
November 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“combat operations” are over right? Mission accomplished? Did we declare war on Iraq?
November 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
OK. It’s the addled leftist activist parroting MoveOn talking points that’s more of a nuisance.
Thanks for the tiebreaker.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I am impressed by Laura’s mind reading abilities.
I somehow doubt she’s “military family” though.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
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!
November 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I am just a mom.
Oops. Spoke too soon.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“…Please let us lose! Please let us lose!…”
“…Go insurgents go! Go insurgents go!…”
–jimfocus chanting for catastrophic defeat for America earlier today
November 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Do you support gay rights?
November 24th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“Go gay rights! Go gay rights!”
November 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
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)
November 24th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
“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!!”
November 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
You know, maybe he actually is a ten year old. That would explain some things.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Poland and Australia pulling out of the “coalition of the willing”.
Who’s left.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
“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!
November 24th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
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.”
November 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
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.
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
November 24th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
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!!!
November 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
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’?
November 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
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:
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
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?
November 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I’m beginning to pull for the dullard “mom” to return. Never thought I’d type those words.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“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.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Get off Iraq. I’m talking about the long term historical trend, as all grownups doubtless appreciated.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
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
November 24th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Occam, look around. The whole world is swinging left and it will swing right again as well. It’s the way it is.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
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.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 am
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?
November 25th, 2007 at 2:10 am
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?
November 25th, 2007 at 3:49 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Go cons go! Go cons go!
Hey you neocons
Whaddya say?
Who ya gonna bomb today?
November 25th, 2007 at 6:28 am
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!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:44 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:50 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
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.)
November 25th, 2007 at 8:02 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:26 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:14 am
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.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
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)
November 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Hey Sally,
Do you have Gary Cooper & Patricia Neal fantasies? You like really tall buildings? Just wondering.
Klaatu barada nikto
November 25th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
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?
November 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
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