George Bush, rope-a-doping Democrats since 2000 A.D.

Hirsch seems to think that committing to a long-term military presence–it’s just so funny that he forgets to mention what happened in Saudi Arabia–is some sort of guarantee that the long-term situation will reverse and Iraqis will miraculously decide that they like hosting Israel’s biggest ally.

Democrats have every reason to celebrate this for two reasons: firstly, at least the administration is committing to a policy based on something other than perpetual warfare in Iraq. Setting such a policy at least acknowledges the need for goalposts, whereas the admin so far as been unwilling to define success or failure in even the vaguest terms.

Secondly, such a plan gives a launching point for a critique of the broader strategy. Will U.S. bases in Iraq become like those in Saudi Arabia, a rallying point for bin Ladenists? Who will pay for it and how?

Maybe the Bush team has good answers for these questions. The record shows that haven’t in the past.

Yes, Iraq could become a thriving democracy. So could Afghanistan. Or at least stable Islamic monarchies, like the one in Kuwait??

I might also win the lottery, after finding a ticket on the sidewalk. But I think we can all agree I shouldn’t plan my retirement around that possibility.

If we vote for Democrats maybe we can get a Five Year Plan.

The war actually ended when we overthrew Saddam. Since then we have been on to another phase: rebuilding Iraq. The rebuilding phase started off well, but was sidtracked by the Mosque bombing, and Gen. Sanchez wasn’t up to the task of getting things in order. Bush’s single biggest failure may have been retaining Sanchez as long as he did. But if iraq goes well, that’s a small point.

The Democrats have no plan whatsoever, except to blame Bush. They never had any fundamental grasp of the issue of Islamic Terror, aside from blaming America. Aside from that they have demonstrated an opportunistic and gutless lack of leadership.

That’s a big disappointment for me, but not nearly as costly in blood and treasure as the Bush team’s poor planning and/or lack of planning.

Yet again, some people insist on sticking to a rigorously speculative viewpoint on Iraq “if Iraq goes well” indeed.

If I win the lottery….

Deny
Obstruct investigation
Deny
Obstruct
Deny
Obstruct
Deny
Obstruct
x 100 days, or
x 200 days, or
x 2 years.

When the inevitably, necessarily(due to obstruction) elongated investigations concluded, and showed evidence of Clinton wrongdoing, the Clinton team every time responded:

This is old news! All the details of this were known long ago. We are not commenting on old news being trumpeted by an Ishmael prosecutor who has chased us (for 100 days, 200 days, 2 years, et al) without mercy or reason or fairness or sanity.

The Clinton team followed this script again and again, from the smallest scandals: infidelity; to the largest: Chinese money buying Lorell missile guidance technology for China.

Now, vis a vis Iraq, as you so accurately point out

The formula? De-emphasize the surge’s gains and focus on the fact that there is still no perfect political agreement in Iraq (unlike here!), and then attribute whatever gains are acknowledged to Sunni fear of the Democrats pulling the money/troops plug post-2006 Congressional election.

This new strategy is an update of Bill Clinton’s 1990s strategy. The new:

deny (surge success)
obstruct (the surge via legislation and propaganda)
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct
deny
obstruct

When awareness of surge success becomes too well known to any longer deny, then, this:

This success is old news. We knew it would happen way back when we began putting pressure on the Iraqi government, via letting them know we expect more from them before Jan 2009. I’m not commenting any further on this old news, which is only now being brought up for political purposes. You people (who bring this up) need to get a life.

What does that mean?

I give my opinion, and I respond in kind to attacks. Sometimes, I answer ad hominem with the same, but I never initiate it. Never.

Neo-neo would sooner ban liberals than respond to their points. Trouble is, she doesn’t know how to do it with 100 percent effectiveness.

She could, of course, require registration, but she knows her hits would dwindle into the single figures…

What a beautiful illustration this is…

in the room with me was a guy from Australia and a guy from New Zealand.

McLovin HAS THE NERVE to accuse a class of people of being whiners?!

My God.. I couldn’t stand being in the room with those two guys.. all they did the entire time was each fight with the other about whose country was better. And they whined and complained about everything in Israel.

I never saw more negative people in my life.

I find Leftists on the whole to be insufferable.. but get two lefties from Australia/NZ in a room, and you’ll want to kill yourself.

So McLovin, when you live in a glass house STFU.

And the extrapolation from a couple of guys to a whole country is a big one indeed. I shudder to think what a similar extrapolation from a few unfortunately selected Americans would yield.

Well obviously I was stooping to his level.

Some of the nicest, most intelligent people in the world are conservatives. That doesn’t make them right, of course. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I’ve found that political views seldom translate to particular behaviors.

I’m not extrapolating to a whole country. Not all Australians are trolls by a longshot, but it’s an interesting fact that almost all of my worst trolls were from either Australia or New Zealand. And these two—if they are indeed two separate people (because most of these Australia and New Zealand trolls have had proxy/shifting IP numbers)—don’t just hail from the same country, they hail from the same rather small suburb of the same city in Australia.

Here’s the deal: don’t ban McLovin and he won’t have to show up under other names.

I rest my case. Apparently not only a troll, but a troll we’ve seen here before.

I have no problem with commenters who disagree. In fact, I enjoy a lively argument in the comments section. But I do have trouble with people who come here merely to taunt (or insult), mount the same tiresome ad hominen arguments over and over, keep moving the goalposts, and who also come back after being banned for behavior much worse than that.

My comment about extrapolation was actually directed to the comment by Vince, with whom I generally agree, not to yours about the IP addresses.

I’m not one of those “elevated” types.. if some lefty wants to engage in the typical 2nd grade type antics its likey i’ll engage with him in a tone I normally dont because ultimately he doesnt care about the issue or what the hell i say.. so there’s no sense in actually taking him or his farcical arguments seriously and waste my time coming up with a thoughtful response.

I have a feeling this year is going to be a rough one.

What about your “troll” Vince P?

dose he still “on the troll border”?

did crossed over with his “merely to taunt (or insult)mount the same tiresome ad hominen arguments over and over”?

That’s a big disappointment for me, but not nearly as costly in blood and treasure as the Bush team’s poor planning and/or lack of planning.

The only plan the Dems have has to do with obtaining political power.

Bush in fact has a big picture plan for the war on Islamic terror. It may or may not be the best, but the nuts and bolts failures in Iraq don’t negate its validity.

The cost in blood, so far, has been light.

Yet again, some people insist on sticking to a rigorously speculative viewpoint on Iraq “if Iraq goes well” indeed.

Iraq is going well. The question now is will the trend continue.

In terms of Bush’s signing a new “treaty” with Iraq, bravo for him. All this talk of leaving Iraq immediately is horribly impractical, unrealistic, and cruel. By cruel, I mean that we can’t leave the job half-done, and we can’t send the message that we are only out to bring the people of this world “freedom lite.” Freedom and democracy are meant to be complete packages. If our planning was rushed, and our execution not as polished as it could have been in Iraq, that doesn’t mean we also have to screw up the final exit. It’s time people stopped chanting anti-war slogans and actually thought about this from a global and human perspective. What is the cost of early withdrawal? Probably more bloodshed, and certainly a huge rallying cry and morale boost to the terrorists and the Middle-Eastern rogues states that fund them.

There is more to this war and rebuilding effort than people think. It’s far too easy to chant slogans about peace, and not think about the consequences. Peace is not always won without a fight…

I think it’s transparent to most people that the Lefties really don’t care about dead Iraqs.

Our having left in the midst of on-going violence means that we are removing ourselves as the restrainer, and are passively unleashing even more death and destruction. A horrible conflageration would have descended onto Iraq if we ddn’t do what we did in 2007. We woud have been responisble for swooping into iraq, destroying its government, and then leaving.. leaving in the middle of bloody vicisious killing… with us leaving, the killing would have been so much worse, with much involvement from syria, lebanon, iran, and saudi arabia doing their best to keep the killing going.

We would been blamed for the barabaric rivers of blood that would be unleashed… ALL MUSLIMS around the world would witness the fratricide in Iraq. knowing that our weak society is the blame for that.

Does anyone think the Muslims and the Iraqis in particular would forgive us?

Hell they hate us enough now and we’ve done more to protect thier unworthy asses than they ever did for us.

But Leftists dont care. What they care agbout is having it be a disater so that can point to Bush and say “This is the result of him”

They do not care how many must die to achive their goal of destoying ush.. disempowwring me

It’s shocking just how cynical these Leftists are… they have no qualms about the deaths their policies woud result in. I lament thay have any posion of influence.

One wonder the killing starts after ONE year after the invasion of Iraq.

If there were “bloody vicisious killing then we should saw that early days or weeks of US invasion of Iraq but it took one year to starts.